Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > South Ayrshire > LA/SA/662

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SA/662 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Nan McFarlane of South Ayrshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/SA/662 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Nan McFarlane (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent may have contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 2.1 (Key Principles).

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”), Councillor Douglas Campbell, alleged that, as a result of statements by the respondent which appeared in the Ayr Advertiser on 20 November 2007, the respondent inferred that the complainant had breached paragraph 3.15 (Confidentiality Requirements) of the Code and that, by commenting on the health of an individual officer (the then Chief Executive), she may have breached the key principles in paragraph 2.1 of the Code.

4. In considering the statements made by the respondent it was necessary to have regard to the fact that the termination of the Chief Executive's employment with the Council received extensive coverage in the local press during the period September to November 2007. It was a feature of that coverage that representatives of all the main political groups on the Council took the opportunity, at various stages, to comment on the topic. The complainant himself acknowledged that he was a regular contributor to this press coverage having been quoted on at least five occasions. It was a statement issued by the respondent to the press in response to one of the complainant's statements which was the subject of the complainant's allegations.

5. The specific comments by the respondent which were the basis of the complaint were:

“The statement by Councillor Douglas Campbell concerning the retirement of South Ayrshire Council's Chief Executive bears a strong resemblance to the type of “information” leaked to the press on this matter over the last few weeks and indeed contained in the newspaper report of his comments.

The SNP was anxious to bring to an end the pillorying by the press and its “insider” informants of an officer who was trying to do his job, but was suffering severe personal stress.”

The complainant considered that this statement strongly inferred that he had breached paragraph 3.15 (Confidentiality Requirements) of the Councillors' Code of Conduct and that, as the respondent is Chair of the Council's Standards and Governance Panel, members of the public may have regarded the allegation as a fact and this may have brought his reputation into disrepute.

6. I considered the respondent's statement carefully and, while it drew comparison with “information” previously leaked to the press, it did not state directly that the complainant had leaked the original information. While a degree of inference may have been capable of being drawn from the statement I did not consider that it “strongly inferred” that the complainant had breached paragraph 3.15 of the Code. Had the respondent's statement been made in the Council Chamber, it would reasonably have been regarded as part of the normal cut and thrust of political debate. The nature of the statement was not altered by the fact that the complainant and the respondent elected to conduct part of the debate on the Chief Executive's position outwith the Council Chamber and expressed views in the local press.

7. In relation to the respondent being Chair of the Council's Governance and Standards Panel, I regarded it as highly unlikely that the vast majority of readers who read her press comments would have been aware or conscious of the fact that she held this position. In addition, I considered that the impact of her comments on those readers who would have been so aware would not have been influenced to any significant degree by this fact. Having regard to all of the foregoing factors I found that the respondent had not breached the Code in relation to this part of the complaint.

8. The second part of the complaint alleged that the respondent commented on the health of an individual officer and that, as a result, she may have breached the key principles in paragraph 2.1 of the Code. The actual comments by the respondent were that that her group “was anxious to bring an end to the pillorying by the press and its “insider” informants of an officer who was trying to do his job, but was suffering severe personal stress.” In assessing this aspect of the complaint I had regard to the fact that the 16 November 2007 edition of the Ayrshire Post had already referred to the fact that the Chief Executive had been off sick for the past few weeks. In addition, I considered that, because of the degree of media exposure that had already been given to the process to which the Chief Executive was being subjected, the respondent's statement that he was suffering from stress was not an especially revelatory comment. Accordingly, in regard to this part of the complaint I found that the respondent had not breached the Code.

9. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Nan McFarlane had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

18 January 2008