Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Scottish Borders Council > LA/SB/831

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SB/831 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Catriona Bathia of Scottish Borders Council

1. Complaint number LA/SB/831 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Catriona Bathia (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principle of the Code of Conduct set out in paragraph 2.1, which requires councillors to respect all other councillors and all council employees.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”), Councillor Davie Paterson, alleged that the respondent sent him an e-mail in which she described him as an idiot.

4. The background to this complaint was that on 2 February 2009, in anticipation of bad weather the next day, Scottish Borders Council decided that all the schools in the council area would be closed on 3 February 2009.  The weather conditions on 3 February 2009, however, were not as adverse as anticipated and this lead to the Education and Lifelong Learning Department of the Council receiving a number of enquiries as to why the decision has been taken to close all schools. A short briefing note was prepared and the respondent, as the portfolio holder for Education and Lifelong Learning sent an e-mail to all the other Scottish Borders councillors, which was in the following terms “Just to let you know that both myself and the Leader were aware of the Director’s decision and fully supported.  As the briefing note dates, the safety and the welfare of Borders’ children must take precedents over all other considerations”.

5. Following receipt of the respondent’s e-mail, the complainant sent an e-mail to all the other Scottish Borders councillors, including the respondent, which was in the following terms “Shame that all those kids missed a day’s education. Do you not think it would have been wiser to have waited until this morning and possibly have an automated response either to say they are open or closed? I just wonder how much this has cost SBC”.

6. Following receipt of the complainant’s e-mail, the respondent inadvertently sent the e-mail complained of to the complainant. It was clear that the respondent intended to send the e-mail not to the complainant, but to another Scottish Borders councillor whose name is, in some respects, similar to the complainant’s name.  The e-mail sent by the respondent was in the following terms “How much does it cost the Borders’ tax payer to have this idiot as a councillor?”

7. After he received the e-mail from the respondent, the complainant contacted the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Executive of the council.  This lead to an e-mail being sent by the respondent to the complainant in which she apologised for her action in the following terms “I understand from Ian Wilkie that you were in receipt of an e-mail which was intended for another recipient.  Please accept my apologies for any offense caused.”

8. The complainant made it clear that he did not accept the complainant’s apology because he did not believe it.  I considered it important that the respondent had apologised immediately for her action, but considered that a fuller apology would have been appropriate.  I noted that a full personal apology might have been made to the complainant by the respondent at a meeting which was arranged with the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer of the council, but that the complainant had intimated that he did not wish to attend that meeting.

9. I was advised by the complainant that he had chosen to copy the e-mail complained of to all the other Scottish Borders’ councillors and to at least one friend.  Although he claimed “it certainly was not myself that approach the press first”.  The subject matter of this complaint did receive some press coverage and I had sight of an e-mail which the complainant sent to a representative of the press within 4 hours of receiving the e-mail complained of from the respondent.

10. I was satisfied that it was not the respondent’s intention that her comment should become known to anyone other than the councillor to whom she had intended to send the e-mail.  In those circumstances, I consider that her action, although foolish, could not reasonably be taken to amount to a contravention of any of the provisions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Catriona Bathia had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

08 April 2009