Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > West Dunbartonshire Council > LA/WD/152

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/WD/152 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor James Bollan of West Dunbartonshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/WD/152 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor James Bollan ("the respondent") a member of the Scottish Socialist Party.

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, and, in particular, the principles of good conduct, set out in paragraph 3.14.

3. The person complaining, Councillor John (Jackie) Maceira, ("the complainant"), a member of the Labour Party, alleged that at the meeting of the Council on 22 December 2004, the respondent behaved in an unacceptable manner in disrupting the meeting to the extent that the meeting had to be suspended and the Police called.

4. The respondent denied the allegation that he disrupted the meeting. He indicated that he was involved in the "cut and thrust" of debate and was the subject of barracking by the members of the Labour Administration. In particular, he was sworn at by another councillor, which latter action was not resolved by the Convener.

5. The Agenda for the meeting contained a number of significant items which were of interest or concern to various groups or individuals in the area. The public gallery in the Chamber was full (some 40-50 people).

6. The Minute recorded that the conduct of the respondent came under scrutiny in terms of the Council's Standing Order 12 (Suspension of Members). A vote on his exclusion was taken. 15 members of the Labour Administration voted in favour and 5 opposition members against, (being all the councillors present in the meeting at that time). The respondent refused to leave the Chamber contrasting the alleged partiality of his treatment with the conduct of a Member of the Labour Administration, Councillor Connie O'Sullivan, who he alleged had sworn at him. He considered he was entitled to an apology. He also referred to his right to represent the interests of his constituents in a democratic forum. The meeting was adjourned and Police assistance summonsed.

7. As the Police had not witnessed the events leading up to the exclusion vote, they confined themselves to dealing with the matter by taking a note, in terms of the Public Meetings Act 1908, of the respondent's name and address, which he gave. They also sought clarification from the Convener as to whether or not a complaint of breach of the peace was being made from them to investigate. It was confirmed that no such complaint was being made on this occasion.

8. Following conclusion of the meeting at 1.10am on 23 December, a press report of the meeting appeared in the edition of the local paper of 31 December 2004. The headline and the sub-title of the article were, respectively:

"Police are the Surprise Guests at Council "Panto"
"Meeting farce as Councillors trade insults"

9. The Standing Orders of West Dunbartonshire Council had set out the rules for the conduct of meetings of the Council. They not only dealt with the order of business, and debating protocols but also the authority and powers of the Convener. Their overriding purpose was to facilitate the proper conduct of business. A key element was matter of disruptive conduct. These Orders were collectively approved by the whole membership of the Authority for the conduct of elected members in the Council Chamber. When considered, in conjunction with the Code, it should have been evident that there was a clear obligation on members to abide by and take individual action to comply with the Orders. That included respecting and complying with the consequences of votes taken in accordance with the Orders.

10. In this particular instance the respondent was alleged to have disrupted the meeting to the extent that a vote in terms of Standing Orders was felt appropriate by some to deal with his possible exclusion. Opposing views were submitted on this crucial point. A competent motion to exclude was submitted and a competent amendment not to exclude was made. The outcome was a vote whereby the Council Administration voted in favour and all the opposition members voted against. The respondent did not respect that vote. He cited the right of an elected member to represent his constituents in a Council Chamber and contrasted his treatment with the alleged failure of the Convener to deal with another example of alleged inappropriate behaviour. Opposing views were also submitted as to whether or not such other behaviour occurred.

11. As a general rule, there could not be an absolute right for an elected member to defy exclusion from a Council Chamber, irrespective of behaviour. To have done so would be to negate the purpose of Standing Orders and indeed the Councillors' Code of Conduct by which all elected members were bound. Each individual member of a local authority was responsible for their own good conduct in the Council Chamber. The bad behaviour alleged or otherwise, of a fellow councillor could not be used as an excuse for a reduction in the standard of behaviour by another councillor. A request to the Police to deal with an ex facie breach of the peace incident, was the ultimate mechanism to be used in appropriate, (if perhaps extreme), circumstances.

12. Evidence was submitted on the conflicting views of members of the Administration and the opposition as to the behaviour of the other "side" at that Council meeting in forcing business through without being tested/questioned or, alternatively, seeking to obstruct the taking of decisions. The Standing Orders were clearly designed to facilitate and regulate democratic debate.

13. There were differing recollections of the witnesses in connection with the case, and, unlike some other Local Authorities, the meetings of the Council were not audio-taped.

14. The meeting which took place on 22 December 2004 was clearly acrimonious. I consider that there was a collective responsibility on all members to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner in terms of the Council's Standing Orders. From the information presented to me, I did not consider this occurred to the appropriate extent and recommended all members take steps to ensure that their individual participation in future meetings was suitably tempered.

15. In view of the differing recollections offered to me, I was unable to conclude that the respondent was individually culpable of disrupting the meeting as alleged in the complaint and I found to that effect.

16. The respondent was, however, one of the key players in the progression of events at the particular meeting. I concluded that he, along with the other members of the Authority should take steps to pay particular attention to the terms of the Code of Conduct dealing with behaviour in the Council Chamber. The Standards Commission had emphasised, on previous occasions, the particular importance it attached to the conduct of members in meeting situations.

17. My view was that the events described in this report should act as a stimulation to all members of the Council to engage in a more cooperative working relationship. It would be helpful if senior elected members, along with senior officers, could have discussions on ways in which this could be achieved, which might include training on the conduct of meetings as part of the Council's responsibilities in relation to corporate governance. This would require political will, and goodwill, which would hopefully be to the ultimate benefit of the citizens of West Dunbartonshire.

18. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor James Bollan had not contravened the Councillor's Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
26 October 2005