Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Renfrewshire Council > LA/R/196 and LA/R/221

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/R/196 and LA/R/221 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Ronald Burns of Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/R/196 and LA/R/221 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("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 of Duty, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness and Leadership in his actions towards the complainant.

3. The person complaining was Councillor Richard Vassie of Renfrewshire Council. In the first instance, the complainant alleged that the respondent had mishandled the investigation of certain allegations against the complainant, had imposed an unfair penalty as a result, and contrasted this treatment with the respondent's alleged handling of alleged misconduct by two of the respondent's own party political colleagues. The complainant accused the respondent of having acted with political motivations. In the second instance, the complainant alleged that the respondent had failed to provide him with background information on the decision made to impose the penalty on him. The complaints involved a single course of alleged conduct on the part of the respondent.

4. The respondent alleged that he had not mishandled the matter, he imposed a fair penalty on the complainant and also acted appropriately. He did not consider that he had breached the Code of Conduct.

5. The starting point of this complaint was an alleged incident, involving the behaviour of the complainant, which took place at a Civic Reception on 28 October 2004 hosted jointly by Renfrewshire Council and the University of Paisley. The complainant, with his guest, attended this event as a representative of the Council. As a result of this incident the respondent, in his capacity as Provost, took specific action against the complainant by issuing a letter banning him from attending future Civic Receptions. This action also ultimately included a complaint number LA/R/149 being submitted by the respondent which was the subject of a Report by me dated 25 August 2005.

6. In interpreting the respondent's letter, the complainant took the view that a distinction could be drawn between Civic Receptions and other Council Receptions organised by Council Departments. Accordingly, he attended an Awards Ceremony in Paisley Town Hall on 16 November 2004. The respondent formed the view that in doing so, the complainant had rendered the ban ineffective.

7. The complainant submitted that the respondent breached the Code of Conduct by not providing him with appropriate background information on the evidence which had been gathered on the allegations against the complainant. It was the position of the respondent that he took appropriate action in the circumstances. On being made aware of the details of the incident, he advised the Group Leader, Councillor Derek Mackay, of the complaint as he considered initially this was a matter for him to take forward within the complainant's own political Group on the Council. Councillor Mackay made his own independent enquiries into the circumstances of the matter and discussed this matter with the complainant on the outcome thereof. Thereafter the complainant issued apologies to the staff concerned. The respondent's position was that, as Provost of Renfrewshire, he should give a clear public indication that the treatment of staff which was alleged would not be seen to be tolerated by him.

8. The complainant was the subject of a separate Report by me (reference LA/R/149 & 185) dated 25 August 2005. He had received a letter from the respondent dated 2 November 2004, which dealt with the complainant's behaviour at the event and banned him from attending future receptions hosted by the Council. No timescale for the ban was given and no clear specification as to what constituted a "reception" was given.

9. It was clear that in Renfrewshire Council, in addition to receptions where invitations were sent out on behalf of the Provost as Civic Head, there were other Council functions of a social nature where invitations were issued by individual Council Departments. At interview, the respondent agreed that, in hindsight, it would have been helpful to include a time limit for the ban. I concurred with that assessment. It was clear that the respondent was annoyed by the action of the complainant in interpreting the ban from attending Council functions relating solely to those where invitations were issued from the Provost's Office. The lack of a time limit and clear specification served to complicate matters in this case and it would have been helpful had the initial letter of 2 November 2004 been worded in more specific terms. I did not however consider that the lack of a timescale or more definitive specification about the extent of the ban was, of itself, sufficient to constitute a finding that the respondent had breached the Code of Conduct. It was, after all, open to the complainant when he received any invitation to a function to check with the respondent as to the respondent's position on his attendance.

10. My investigation indicated that the respondent, as Provost, received reports as to the complainant's conduct at a Civic Reception, made inquiries about the incident, advised the complainant's Group Leader, (who made his own enquiries), and took a decision to impose a ban. On balance, I did not consider that to have been an unreasonable course of conduct on his part where he had satisfied himself reasonably that there had been inappropriate conduct on the part of the complainant. The respondent in the first instance referred the matter to the complainant's Group Leader for attention as he felt it was a disciplinary question for that political grouping of councillors and opportunity was given for the situation to be checked, independently of the respondent. This was an appropriate and vital step to take. Following that step, the complainant issued apologies but was not the subject of any procedures within his own Group. The expectation of the complainant that he was entitled to direct contact with the respondent was at odds with the generally well established conventions that his Group Leader was the appropriate point of contact for the respondent.

11. In considering the contrasting example provided by the complainant as to how the respondent dealt, or failed to deal, with allegations about the conduct of a Councillor from his own party, the question was whether or not the situation was at all analogous. The first step was to consider whether or not the councillor in question was acting whilst undertaking Council duties. This was critical as the Code of Conduct did not cover the conduct of councillors whilst acting as private individuals. No evidence had been provided to me to prove any such allegations, including linking them to Councillor Manser's duties as a councillor in terms of the Code. Accordingly the proposition of the complainant in this instance could not be upheld and no breach of the Code by the respondent could be involved.

12. The example of the respondent providing a reference for a fellow councillor whose conduct was the subject of proceedings before the Standards Commission had also been raised by the complainant. The decision to grant a reference in such circumstances was not one to be taken lightly. The respondent in his submission to the Commission, in that particular case, was clear in recognising the misconduct which had occurred and provided his considered view of the respondent in that case. A reference of that nature was often an integral and vital part of "judicial" proceedings and could not be reasonably argued, in my view, to amount to a breach of the Code.

13. The complainant also alleged, on a wider basis, that the respondent's actions in this case were politically motivated against him and the party he represents. He considered that the respondent acted under the direction of his own political party. The respondent firmly denied such a course of conduct and stated that he did not allow party political loyalties to override his responsibilities as Provost of Renfrewshire. No evidence was presented to me by the complainant, which would have enabled me to conclude that the respondent's conduct in this matter demonstrated such a motivation.

14. As regards the ban imposed by the respondent on the complainant, I considered the duration involved needed to be clarified. The appropriate juncture at which this could have been done might be at the conclusion of the Standard Commission's determination of the complaints against the complainant that he had breached the Code of Conduct in respect of the same incident which had resulted in the respondent taking his own steps to deal with the situation.

15. Renfrewshire Council's existing arrangements for civic receptions sought to ensure, quite properly, that invitations to councillors were issued to all political groups. One apparent difficulty in this case related to differing interpretations of what constituted a "reception". In such circumstances, I recommended the Council consider whether or not an additional specific policy/protocol needed to be introduced to assist the understanding of all concerned.

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

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