Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > West Lothian Council > LA/WL/494

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/WL/494 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors" Code of Conduct by Councillor Stuart Borrowman of West Lothian Council

1. Complaint number LA/WL/494 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Stuart Borrowman ("the respondent").

2. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent contravened the rules of General Conduct set out in section 3 of the Code, in particular paragraph 3.17 which relates to the Use of Council Facilities. He alleged that on 9 December 2004, 28 April, 31 May and 2 August 2006, Councillor Borrowman used Council facilities to circulate letters which breached the provisions of the Code and section 9 of West Lothian Council"s guidelines on the use of Council facilities.

3. The letter of 9 December 2004 was sent to a number of residents of Armadale inviting them to a meeting which the respondent organised to discuss the image of the town following adverse portrayal in the media. The complainant regarded the letter as being exclusively concerned with the actions of Councillor Borrowman and did not concern any policy or function of the Council. I did not uphold the complaint as I considered that general wellbeing and economic development are legitimate matters of interest to the Council and to a local councillor. It appeared to me that a local councillor, especially when working in conjunction with other fellow councillors as in this case, was entitled to act on concerns that townspeople may have about the portrayal of their community.

4. The complainant considered that the respondent"s letter of 28 April 2006 breached the Code of Conduct and the West Lothian Council guidelines because it was sent to residents who were not Councillor Borrowman"s constituents, it was on Councillor Borrowman"s headed notepaper and served to highlight his actions. The recipients lived in the vicinity of the new Armadale Academy and the letter informed them of the outcome of a committee meeting at which the respondent raised their concerns about the impact of building works for the new Academy. The respondent sits on the Development Control Sub Committee whereas his fellow councillor, in whose ward the residents live, does not. However, his fellow councillor was aware of the letter. The Council guidelines do not debar a councillor from writing to residents in another member"s ward. The letter was factual and informative and I did not consider that its purpose or content was primarily to promote the respondent. In view of this, I did not uphold the complaint relating to this letter.

5. The letter of 31 May 2006 related to the proposed Airdrie - Bathgate railway line and the campaign for a station at Blackridge. In the complainant"s view, the letter breached the rules on the use of Council facilities because it did not concern the functions of the Council or its services, nor did it mention a policy of the Council, although the complainant acknowledged that securing a station at Blackridge is agreed Council policy. He felt the emphasis of the letter was to highlight Councillor Borrowman and his involvement in the campaign for a station at Blackridge, and that it was part of a political campaign. Again, I did not uphold the complaint. The Enterprise and Development Committee agreed the Council"s policy on this matter on 7 March 2006 and I did not place weight on the fact that the complainant did not expressly state this in the letter. The emphasis of the letter was certainly to highlight the campaign for a station at Blackridge and to gauge public views. Councillor Borrowman was Chair of the local group that was pressing for the station. Rather than being for the party political or campaigning purposes envisaged in paragraph 3.17 of the Code, I regarded the subject of the letter as a local campaign for a local service.

6. The complainant said that Councillor Borrowman"s letter of 2 August 2006 was of a newsletter type and concentrated predominantly on his actions and not those of the Council. The complainant considered that, in common with the other letters, it could have been distributed by other means than at the expense of West Lothian Council. I did not uphold this complaint. The letter dealt expressly with concerns within the respondent"s ward, which had been raised directly with him as the local councillor. While it referred to action which he, himself, had taken, it also referred to actions of the Council and officers.

7. The Council guidelines are a useful tool for staff and members seeking to ensure compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. They are, however, only guidelines and are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive. A judgement often requires to be made about the content or context of a publication. In this case, it was my view that none of the letters distributed by the respondent breached the guidelines or the provisions of the Code.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Stuart Borrowman had not contravened the Councillors" Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
22 January 2007