Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Renfrewshire Council > LA/R/283, LA/R/343 and LA/R/362

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/R/283, LA/R/343 and LA/R/362 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Provost Ronald Burns of Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/R/283, LA/R/343 and LA/R/362 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Provost Ronald Burns (Labour) ("the respondent") of Renfrewshire Council.

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, and, in particular, had failed to act in accordance with the key Principles of the Code of Conduct in his actions towards the complainant, with regard to Duty, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness and Leadership.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant"), Councillor Richard Vassie (SNP) of Renfrewshire Council, made three complaints. In the first instance, the complainant alleged that he was not invited to a photo-call to mark the arrival in Paisley of the Olympic Torch for the Special Olympic Games and as a result was prevented by the respondent from carrying out his responsibilities to represent his constituents at the event. In the second instance, the complainant alleged that, at a Church Service to commemorate the 700th Anniversary of the death of William Wallace, he was, in effect, prevented by the respondent, from sitting in a reserved seating area set aside for members of Renfrewshire Council and other dignitaries attending a prior Civic Reception. In the third instance, the complainant alleged that he did not receive an invitation to attend a Civic Reception on 7 November 2005 and was, as a result, prevented by the respondent from being able to represent his constituents at the event. The complaints were conjoined in this Note because they involved a single course of alleged conduct on the part of the respondent, resulting from an initial decision taken by the respondent, in respect of the complainant, in November 2004.

4. The starting point of this whole matter was an alleged incident, involving 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 in view of his alleged behaviour at that event, by writing to him on 2 November 2004, banning him from attending future receptions hosted by the Council.

5. 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. On 13 December 2004, the respondent submitted a complaint to me in respect of the complainant's conduct. The letter contained a note of the sequence of events which was alleged to have occurred at the Reception on 28 October 2004 based on information received by the respondent. That complaint by the respondent, (number LA/R/149), was the subject of a Report by me dated 25 August 2005.

6. In turn, the complainant submitted two complaints against the respondent arising from the specific action taken. These previous two complaints, (number LA/R/196 and number LA/R/221), were the subject of a Note of Decision by me dated 30 November 2005.

7. In the first instance, the complainant alleged that the respondent breached the Code of Conduct by failing to invite him to a photo-call for the Special Olympics thereby, in effect, interfering with the complainant's rights to represent his constituents at the event. In direct contrast, it was the position of the respondent that an invitation was issued by his office as he did not consider the event to be a Civic Reception. The respondent's office held a list of responses to the invitations. This included a note that the complainant would be in attendance. I did not consider it necessary for me to reach a determination on this marked divergence of recollection. I considered that this particular complaint was based on a mistaken assumption by the complainant that he was entitled to attend any and all photo-calls or other Council events of a publicity nature to represent his constituents. There was no such automatic right. A number of Local Authorities had policies or protocols about such matters. No evidence had been submitted to me that there was a policy or protocol covering this type of event which had been breached by the respondent, even if no invitation had been issued.

8. In the second instance, the complainant alleged that he had a right to sit in a reserved area for dignitaries and Councillors at the Service in Paisley Abbey to commemorate the 700th Anniversary of the death of William Wallace. He indicated that he was prevented by doing so by the respondent. It was the position of the respondent that the complainant was not invited to the Civic Reception preceding the service and that a seating area was set aside for the guests, so attending, by the Abbey staff. If the complainant had considered it of importance that he personally be in attendance at the Service, there would have been nothing to stop him from attending the Service by sitting elsewhere in the Abbey. I considered that this particular complaint was based on a mistaken assumption by the complainant that he was entitled to attend any and all Civic Functions, Ceremonies, or other Council Events of a social nature to represent his constituents. There was no such automatic right. The specific seating area, where the complainant thought he was entitled to sit was patently set aside for those dignitaries and Councillors attending the Civic Reception. This was confirmed to the complainant prior to the event. As the complainant was not a guest at the Civic Reception, he should have recognised it was wholly inappropriate for him to expect that he be the subject of special treatment and to seek to interpose himself into the arrangements. No evidence had been submitted that there was a policy or protocol covering this type of event which had been breached by the respondent. It should also have been remembered that Civic Receptions and other such events were not held for the benefit or edification of individual Councillors, but rather to mark particular events or the contribution made to the local community by individuals or Groups who had been invited to attend.

9. In the third instance, the complainant alleged that he was entitled to attend the Council's "Presentation of Housing Scheme Gardens and Sport Trophies" Ceremony held in Paisley Town Hall on 7 November 2005. No invitation was sent to the complainant and it is his position that being so denied, he was prevented from carrying out his democratically elected duties to represent his Ward and its citizens at the Reception. I considered that this particular complaint was again based on a mistaken assumption by the complainant that he was entitled to attend any and all Civic functions, ceremonies, or other Council events of a social nature to represent his constituents. There was no such automatic right. No evidence had been submitted that there was a policy or protocol covering this type of event which had been breached by the respondent.

10. The complainant was the subject of a separate Report by me (reference LA/R/149 &185) dated 25 August 2005. He received a letter from the respondent dated 2 November 2004, which dealt with the complainant's behaviour at a Council Reception and banned him from attending future receptions hosted by the Council. My report found that the respondent had not breached the Code of Conduct by writing to the respondent and banning him from attending future Receptions. (My report did, however, also comment on the fact that no timescale for the ban was given and no clear specification as to what constituted a "reception" had been given.) I found that the matters covered in this Note were directly consequential to the circumstances outlined in my report of 25 August 2005.

11. In connection with my Note of Decision dated 30 November 2005 on complaints numbers LA/R/196 & LA/R/221 by the complainant against the respondent, 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 inquiries), and took a decision to impose a ban. The second and third examples provided by the complainant and itemised in this note were a direct consequence of, and derived from, that decision. (My said Note of 30 November 2005 concluded that, on balance, I did not consider there to have been an unreasonable course of conduct on the respondent's part where he had satisfied himself reasonably that there had been inappropriate conduct on the part of the complainant.)

12. At interview, in connection with my Note of Decision on complaints numbers LA/R/196 & LA/R/221, the respondent agreed that, in hindsight, it would have been helpful to include a time limit for the ban. I concurred with that assessment. I found that the lack of a time limit and clear specification had served to exacerbate matters covered in this Note also and it would have been helpful had the initial letter of 2 November 2004 been worded in more specific terms.

13. 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 be done might be considered to 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 resulted in the respondent taking his own steps to deal with the situation.

14. I found that 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 addition, there were other categories of Occasions, Civic Functions, Ceremonies, Photo-calls or other Council Events of a social or publicity nature which could often arise. In such circumstances, I recommended the Council consider whether or not any additional specific policies/protocols needed to be introduced to assist the understanding of all concerned.

15. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded 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
10 January 2006