Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > South Lanarkshire > LA/SL/452

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SL/452 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Jim Docherty of South Lanarkshire Council

1 Complaint number LA/SL/452 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Jim Docherty ("the respondent"). The person complaining ("the complainant") Councillor Stan Hogarth, is also a member of South Lanarkshire Council.

2 It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 3.14 relating to Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee. The complaint alleged that the nature of the respondent's intervention at meetings of the Education Resources and Corporate Resources Committees of the Council, when the complainant was speaking, was such that he contravened the Code.

3 In terms of paragraph 14 of the Council's Standing Orders on Procedures a member who wishes to speak at a Committee meeting must speak directly about the motion or amendment that is being proposed, seconded or discussed. A member who is speaking when a question of order is raised must stop speaking until the chair has dealt with the question of order.

4 There was general agreement among the complainant, the respondent and the chair that the respondent raised a point of order when the complainant was speaking at a meeting of the Education Resources Committee on 30 May 2006. The issue was whether the nature of the respondent's intervention represented conduct which constituted a breach of the Code and on this latter point the complainant and the respondent were in disagreement.

5 The item which the complainant attempted to raise at the meeting was the alleged failure of the Council to consult with his constituents over the rebuilding of a new school at Strathaven Academy. It was clear from the general tenor of his letter to Councillor McAvoy that the complainant felt strongly that his constituents had not been adequately consulted by the Council regarding the proposed new school. He had spoken to the chair of the Education Resources Committee on two occasions prior to the meeting on 30 May 2006 in an attempt to get the subject on the agenda but had been advised that the agenda for the meeting had already been set. When he attempted to raise the item at the meeting his efforts were thwarted by the respondent raising a point of order.

6 The complainant alleged that in raising the point of order the respondent "bellowed" to the chair and "roared uncontrollably." The respondent simply stated that he had raised a point of order. The chair also simply stated that the respondent had raised a point of order. There was, therefore, a divergence of views about the actual nature of the respondent's intervention. By his own admission the complainant's attempt to raise the item was "slightly opportunistic." It may be that, because of the complainant's perceived opportunism, the respondent intervened in a somewhat forceful manner. Even if this was the case I would regard such action as no more than the robust type of exchange which frequently takes place as part of the democratic process and not as conduct which represents a breach of the Code. In relation to this aspect of the complaint, I found that the respondent's conduct did not constitute a contravention of the Code.

7 It is also relevant to point out the Standards Commission has issued guidance to local authorities on Conduct in the Chamber. In summary the guidance recommends that every local authority should have a set of Standing Orders in place to regulate proceedings at meetings and that these should allow for members who engage in disruptive behaviour to be excluded from the meeting. The guidance recommends that such behaviour should, where possible, be dealt with by the local authority. South Lanarkshire Council has a set of Standing Orders to regulate conduct at meetings and incidents of the type alleged by the complainant should, if they so merit, be dealt with under Standing Orders.

8 In relation to the second part of the complaint the complainant alleged that, when attempting to raise the same item at the Corporate Resources Committee meeting on 31 May 2006, the respondent repeatedly switched off the microphone which they were sharing. The respondent denied this and claimed that, on one occasion, he actually switched on the complainant's microphone for him. The chair of the meeting stated that when the complainant attempted to raise an item which was not on the agenda he asked him to desist but he continued to speak over him and, ultimately, this led him to make use of the chair's over-ride facility on the microphone. The Executive Director of Corporate Resources confirmed that there is a microphone over-ride facility available to the chair. On the basis of the information provided I found that the respondent did not switch off the microphone when the complainant was attempting to raise the item and, therefore, that he did not conduct himself in a manner which contravened the Code.

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

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
21 August 2006