Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > West Dunbartonshire Council > LA/WD/87, 95 and 96

This Report has been edited for publication on the web.

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Linda McColl of West Dunbartonshire Council

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Outline of the Complaints and the Response
3.0 The Investigation
4.0 Consideration of the Evidence
5.0 Findings and Conclusion
Appendix Contents of e-mail

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Complaints LA/WD/87, 95 and 96 allege a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of Section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

1.2 The complaints have been lodged separately by three individuals ("the complainants") who allege a contravention of the Code by Councillor Linda McColl ("the respondent"). The respondent is an elected member of West Dunbartonshire Council ("the Council").

1.3 It is alleged that the respondent has contravened the following key principles contained in section 2 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct:

With regard to Duty section 2 of the Code states:

"You have a duty to uphold the law and act in accordance with the law and the public trust placed in you. You have a duty to act in the interests of the Council as a whole and all the communities served by it and a duty to be accessible to all the people of the area for which you have been elected to serve, and to represent their interests conscientiously."

With regard to Leadership section 2 of the Code states:

"You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example, and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business."

With regard to Respect section 2 of the Code states:

"You must respect all other councillors and all Council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times."

You should apply the principles of this Code to your informal dealings with the Council's employees, party political groups and others no less scrupulously than at formal meetings of the Council and its committees and sub-committees.

It is also alleged that the respondent breached principle 3.17 relating to Use of Council Facilities which states:

"The Council will normally provide facilities to assist councillors in carrying out their duties as councillors or as holders of a particular office within the Council. This may involve access to secretarial assistance, stationery and equipment such as telephones, fax machines and computers. Such facilities must only be used in carrying out Council duties and must never be used for party political and campaigning activities. Where the Council recognises party political groups, assistance to such groups is appropriate in relation to Council matters but must not extend to political parties more generally and you should be aware of and ensure the Council complies with the statutory rules governing local authority publicity."

1.4 The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which the respondent has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

1.5 For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Mrs Anne Mahoney, Investigating Officer.

1.6 This report has been prepared for submission to the Standards Commission for Scotland in terms of section 14(2) of the 2000 Act. The report was submitted in draft form to the respondent for any representations.

2.0 Outline of the Complaints and the Response

The Complaints

2.1 The complaints are set out in letters and a complaint form submitted by three complainants. The complaints concerned the contents and offending nature of a joke which was circulated by e-mail from Councillor McColl's computer to 15 persons, including two Council employees. The computer was provided by West Dunbartonshire Council for use by the respondent. The first complainant complained that Councillor McColl showed disrespect to Council employees by sending them the e-mail. He referred to the story appearing in the local press. The second complainant felt that in her position, Councillor McColl must be seen to be above such behaviour and that, as Depute Provost, she must be seen to encompass all creeds and colours. The third complainant referred to the racial content of the e-mail and to Councillor McColl's position as Depute Provost. He said people had been offended by receiving the e-mails and complained that no action had been taken on the matter. He also questioned why other people had access to Councillor McColl's computer, which was Council property.

The Response

2.2 In reply to the first complaint, Councillor McColl stated that the e-mail did not originate from her Council supplied computer; it was originally received by her from an e-mail address in Canada and was inadvertently sent out by her husband to an address group on her computer. Two additional, similar complaints were subsequently received and Councillor McColl responded stating that she had been in touch with the recipients of this e-mail and had been assured that not one of them made any complaint about receiving the e-mail in question. Councillor McColl also stated that she could not access the Council's servers and had been unable to do so for approximately four years.

3.0 The Investigation

3.1 I sought and received information from the Council on the complaint, including the results of an enquiry conducted by the Council's Chief Executive. I also obtained information from Councillor McColl. I examined relevant Council documents relating to E-mail and Internet Security and Corporate Information and Security Policy.

3.2 The evidence which I obtained is set out in Section 4 of this report.

4.0 Consideration of the Evidence

4.1 Councillor Linda McColl is Depute Provost of West Dunbartonshire Council.

4.2 In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that Councillor McColl was supplied with computer equipment which belonged to the local authority.

4.3 The Council has a policy document entitled 'E-mail and Internet Security Policy for Employees and Other Agents' which regulates the use of the computer for internet and e-mail access via the Council's own internet connections. Councillor McColl did not use West Dunbartonshire Council's internet and e-mail systems. Instead, she connected to these through a subscription paid for by her privately to the service provider AOL.

4.4 The contents of the offending e-mail are set out in the Appendix. While not explicitly racist, the joke has recognisable overtones which some might feel could cause offence. Complaints about the matter first arose in early June 2004 when newspaper articles were published in the local and national press. In responding to press comment, Councillor McColl denied having sent the e-mail. The press articles reported her as saying that her great-niece, whom she allowed to use the computer, may have accidentally forwarded the e-mail.

4.5 Subsequently, press enquiries and a complaint from the second complainant were made to the Chief Executive who had decided to initiate an investigation. I asked the Chief Executive to provide me with details of that investigation.

4.6 The Chief Executive wrote to Councillor McColl on 10 June 2004 saying that he required to consider whether there may have been a breach of the Council's E-mail and Internet Security Policy and/or paragraph 3.17 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. He asked Councillor McColl:

whether the e-mail was sent from her home;
whether it was sent using the computer provided to her by the Council;
if so, whether the e-mail was sent by her or by someone else;
whether her Council e-mail account was used.

4.7 Councillor McColl responded on 23 June 2004 saying that she could not have breached the Council's e-mail and internet security policy as she had been unable to access the Council's server for some years due to password problems and costs. She had therefore set up her own AOL account at no cost to the Council and her Council e-mails were sent and received through that personal account. In response to the Chief Executive's specific questions, she confirmed:

yes (the e-mail was sent from her home);
yes (it was sent using the computer provided by the Council);
it was sent by someone else who had no connection with the Council, but who was prepared to speak to the Chief Executive if he so wished;
no, it was not sent via the Council's e-mail account.

4.8 Councillor McColl informed the Chief Executive she had established that it was, in fact, her husband who had been using the computer at the time the e-mail was sent out. Councillor McColl's husband was interviewed as part of the Chief Executive's enquiries. He confirmed that he had used the computer supplied to Councillor McColl by the Council when the e-mail was sent out. Mr McColl stated that the e-mail was one which was received from Canada.

4.9 On completing his enquiries, the Chief Executive wrote to Councillor McColl on 8 July 2004 informing her of his conclusions on the matter. In summarising, he said Councillor McColl had acknowledged that the e-mail was received on her Council provided computer and accepted that it was forwarded from that machine to other people. She had stated that she was not responsible for the action, and her husband had clearly stated that it was he who forwarded the e-mail. The Chief Executive had checked that Councillor McColl did not use the Council's internet/e-mail system and that indeed the e-mail was not sent via the Council's e-mail system but through a privately paid system. Following the Chief Executive's enquiries, Councillor McColl had decided to hand back the computer to the Council.

4.10 The Chief Executive concluded that Councillor McColl had not breached the Council's internet/e-mail policy because it related to the use of the Council's system and she had not used that system. He considered, however, that she had breached section 3.17 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct as she allowed Council equipment to be used for a purpose other than carrying out Council duties. He noted that she had returned the computer.

4.11 I commenced my investigation at the point where the Chief Executive had just completed his own enquiries. During my investigation I asked the Chief Executive for further information about any Council guidance or rules relating to the use of computer equipment provided by the authority. He informed me that sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.9 of the Council's Corporate Information and Technology Security Policy applied. Section 6.1 states that precautions should be taken to ensure that access to PCs is restricted at all times to authorised personnel.

4.12 In responding to the complaints, Councillor McColl emphasised that the e-mail in question did not originate from her e-mail address but was originally received from Canada. Her husband, who is not computer literate, took the opportunity whilst she was out to try and improve his skills. He was not aware that the computer was set up with address groups and inadvertently sent out the e-mail to a group of people (which included two Council employees), rather than to an individual to whom he had intended to send it for comment. Councillor McColl was unaware of this until the local newspaper contacted her on the matter.

4.13 During the investigation, I asked Councillor McColl if she accepted the findings of the Chief Executive's enquiries as notified to her in his letter of 8 July 2004. In a letter of 9 August 2004 she replied that she accepted the Chief Executive's findings and said she had returned the computer to ensure that no such mishap could happen again. She disputed the complaint that she showed disrespect to Council employees since she, herself, did not forward the e-mail in question. In further comments which she sent to me on 17 October 2004, Councillor McColl stated that she had been in touch with the recipients of the e-mail in question, none of whom had made any complaint about receiving it. Therefore, as the third complainant had stated that two recipients of the e-mail had made complaints about it, she could only assume the e-mail must have forwarded to them by someone else. She said that at no time had she blamed her great-niece for sending out the e-mail; this was an inaccurate newspaper report.

5.0 Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complaints all arose from the same set of circumstances, namely the issue of an e-mail from Councillor McColl's computer which resulted in adverse stories about an offending joke appearing in the press.

5.2 The first complainant complained that Councillor McColl contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct by not showing respect to Council employees to whom (among others) the e-mail was sent. The second complainant said that Councillor McColl has a duty to encompass people of all creeds and colours and should be seen to be above the kind of behaviour involved in sending out an e-mail which had some racial overtones. The third complainant also referred to the racial content of the e-mail. He questioned why other people had been able to access the councillor's computer which was Council property, and he questioned why no action had been taken on the matter.

5.3 Councillors have a duty to show leadership and example and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council. Any adverse newspaper reports which find grounds to criticise or comment on a Councillor's actions bring his or her leadership into question and undermine the Council's integrity. In this case, the e-mail which was sent out could well have been seen as offensive and contrary to the interests of a section of the population.

5.4 However, in this case, responsibility for sending out the offending e-mail cannot be laid at Councillor McColl's door. She has pointed out that the e-mail was received from overseas and did not originate on her Council computer. In addition, Councillor McColl's husband has acknowledged that it was he, not Councillor McColl, who sent out the offending e-mail. In view of this, I accept that Councillor McColl herself did not send out the e-mail or personally cause or intend disrespect to Council employees or offence to anyone in the community. Consequently, I do not uphold the complaints that Councillor McColl breached key principles of the Code by failing to show respect for Council employees, or by any failure of duty on her part to represent the interests of all members of the community served by the Council.

5.5 It is perhaps understandable that where a computer is made available, members of families will want to use it, since in many homes, it is not convenient to have more than one computer. In such cases, computers provided by authorities should, perhaps, have protected areas and Councillors should be able to call on advice to implement this. Nevertheless, by not regulating the use of the Council computer, as required by Council policy, Councillor McColl acquiesced in the circumstances which allowed the e-mail to go out from her computer and led to the matter becoming the subject of public comment. To that extent, I uphold this part of the complaint, and I find that there was a breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor McColl. In not adhering to Council policy concerning the use of computer equipment, she failed to show the principles of leadership and example expected from Councillors in conducting public business and was in breach of paragraph 3.17 of the Code which relates to the use of Council facilities.

5.6 Part of the complaint alleges that no action was taken in regard to the matter. That is not correct, given that the matter was, in fact, investigated by the Chief Executive. During that enquiry, Councillor McColl and her husband explained what had happened. Councillor McColl decided to return the Council's computer and make her own arrangements. Indeed, she has pointed out that for some years, she has chosen not to use the Council's internet service but has always paid privately for her own internet and e-mail services.

Summary

5.7 To the extent that I have described in paragraph 5.5 above, I find that there was a breach of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor McColl in that she failed to show leadership and example and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business and was in breach of section 3.17 of the Code which states that Council facilities must only be used in carrying out Council duties.

5.8 With regard to what, if any, action should be taken in consequence of this finding, I have taken into account that Councillor McColl did not take the action to send out the e-mail herself; that her internet and e-mail activities were not conducted through the Council's system and that she has returned the computer to the Council. Accordingly, I have decided to recommend that, in these circumstances, no action be taken against Councillor McColl.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
30 December 2004

Appendix

Complaint no. LA/WD/87,95,96
Subj: Leroy
Date: 5/3/04
To:

A mother walks into the downtown welfare office, trailed by 15 kids.

"WOW," the social worker exclaims, "Are they ALL YOURS?"

"Yep they are all mine," the flustered momma sighs, having heard that question a thousand times before.
She says, "sit down Leroy." All the children rush to find seats.

"Well," says the social worker, "then you must be here to sign up. I'll need all your children's names."

"This one's my oldest - he is Leroy." "OK, and who's next?" "Well, this one is Leroy, also."

The social worker raises an eyebrow but continues. One by one, through the oldest four, all boys, all named Leroy.

Then she is introduced to the eldest girl, named Leighroy!

"All right...," says the caseworker, "I'm seeing a pattern here. Are they ALL named Leroy?"

Their momma replied, "Well, yes--it make it easier. When it is time to get them out of bed and ready for school, I yell, 'Leroy!' an' when it's time for dinner, I just yell 'Leroy!' an' they all comes a runnin'. An' if I need to stop the kid who's running into the street, I just yell 'Leroy' and all of them stop. It's the smartest idea I ever had, namin' them all Leroy."

The social worker thinks this over for a bit, then wrinkles her forehead and says tentatively, "But what if you just want ONE kid to come, and not the whole bunch?"

"Ah that's so easy," said the momma "Then I calls them by their last names."