Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > South Lanarkshire > LA/SL/483

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/SL/483 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Stan Hogarth of South Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/SL/483 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Stan Hogarth ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 on Respect, Duty and Leadership, and Appendix C on Relations Between Councillors And Employees In Scottish Councils.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that following a meeting between the complainant and the respondent to discuss the rebuilding of Strathaven Academy, the respondent apparently told or insinuated to a member or members of Strathaven Academy Action Group (SAAG) that the complainant had said that the consultation relating to Strathaven Academy was deficient. This in turn apparently led to SAAG sending to the Council and others a document entitled Alternative Scheme for the Rebuilding of Strathaven Academy, which included the sentence "Donald Thomas, Head of Schools Modernisation, has recently admitted that the consultation process was deficient, so there is now some hope that it will be repeated properly." The complainant denied that he had said this to the respondent at their meeting or to any other person on any other occasion.

4. The respondent, who was firmly of the view that the consultation process had been deficient, did not consider that he could be held responsible for the manner in which SAAG interpreted his account of his conversation with the complainant.

5. The complainant who had served in local government for 41 years was the Project Director of South Lanarkshire Council's Schools Modernisation Programme. As part of this programme, Strathaven Academy was to be entirely rebuilt, on its existing site, in the period 2007 to 2009. Sections of the Strathaven community were opposed to this plan and wished the school to be rebuilt on an alternative site. They formed SAAG to oppose the Council's plan to rebuild the school on its existing site.

6. One of the main issues raised by SAAG was that the Council had failed to comply with its statutory duty to consult, in terms of the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, on the rebuilding of the school. This had been denied by the Council. It had always been the Council's position that it had fully complied with its legal obligations. The Council had sought and obtained legal opinion which supported this view.

7. The members of SAAG, supported by the respondent, were of the view that the consultation process had been deficient on the basis that consultation had taken place in relation to refurbishment of Strathaven Academy, but the decision to refurbish had subsequently been superseded by a decision to rebuild. The Council's position, as explained by the complainant, was that because Strathaven Academy was not to be rebuilt on an alternative site, there was no legal requirement for public consultation, but the Council had attempted to keep local people advised and informed. The members of SAAG wished Strathaven Academy to be rebuilt on another site thus avoiding the need for the pupils to be educated at a school in East Kilbride during the rebuilding process.

Shortly after his election, the respondent had sought and obtained a meeting with the complainant to discuss the concerns of SAAG in relation to the rebuilding of Strathaven Academy. The accounts given by the respondent and the complainant of what had been said at that meeting, which had taken place on 6 April 2006, were reasonably consistent, and in particular, both agreed that the complainant had not make the admission subsequently attributed to him in the SAAG document.

When he had become aware of the inclusion of the alleged admission in the SAAG document, the complainant had sought an explanation from the secretary of SAAG and had been advised by her, in a letter, that SAAG "were relying on an account on (sic) a discussion between yourself and Councillor Hogarth."

The complainant alleged that the SAAG document had been widely circulated, and, he wrote: - "I considered that Councillor Hogarth's conduct in apparently telling or insinuating to SAAG that I said that the consultation relating to Strathaven Academy was deficient to be a totally unfair use of his position with the clear intention of casting doubt on my integrity as a senior employee of the Council... I have an unblemished disciplinary record which could well have been jeopardised if my employers had believed that I had made the statement which Councillor Hogarth appears to have attributed to me... So far as external recipients of the Proposal are concerned I believe that the attribution of the statement to me has an adverse impact on my public standing and reputation."

The respondent accepted that, at his meeting with the complainant on 6 April 2006, the complainant had not at any stage admitted that the consultation process was deficient. Councillor Hogarth stated that he had asked the complainant to explain the whole sequence of events and he (Councillor Hogarth) had expressed the view that what had been described to him could hardly be seen to be consultation. The respondent explained that he had subsequently spoken by telephone to the secretary of SAAG, during which conversation he had told her that the complainant had given him a chronological breakdown of events. He stated that that was all that he had reported and denied that he had attributed to the complainant the remark which was at the heart of this complaint. He believed that he had probably said that it was clear (in his opinion) that the consultation process had been deficient. The respondent had had no input into the SAAG document which had subsequently been published, and he had not seen the document before its publication.

12. In all the circumstances it had not been unreasonable for the complainant to have assumed that the respondent had attributed to him the admission which led to the making of this complaint. The comment in the letter from the secretary of SAAG, which is referred to above, - "we were relying on an account on (sic) a discussion between yourself and Councillor Hogarth," made the complainant's assumption understandable. It was clear, however, and very fairly accepted by the complainant that he could do no more than assume that the admission had been attributed to him by the respondent. The respondent, however, accepted that the complainant had not made the admission, and denied that he, the respondent, had attributed it to the complainant. It would obviously have been helpful to have obtained evidence on this point from the secretary of SAAG. However, she declined to be interviewed. In this context I considered it relevant that in another letter to the complainant she wrote: - "The statement which has been removed was made in good faith, on the basis of information received from our elected representative, Councillor Stan Hogarth, and the Group understood that it represented an accurate account of your conversation. I do now understand, however, that you have stated that no such references to the consultation process were made by you. I therefore, on behalf of the Group, fully withdraw the statement."

13. Having carefully examined all the available information, I considered that there was insufficient evidence for me to find that the respondent had attributed to the complainant the admission complained of, namely that the consultation relating to Strathaven Academy had been deficient, and I found to that effect. Accordingly, it was unnecessary for me to consider whether - if the evidence had led to me find that the respondent had so attributed the admission - this action would have amounted to a breach of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

14. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Stan Hogarth had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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