Complaint numbers LA/WD/732, 736, 749 concerning alleged contraventions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor James Bollan of West Dunbartonshire Council

• Introduction
• Outline of the Complaints and the Response
• The Investigation
• Consideration of the Evidence
• Findings and Conclusion

Introduction

1.1 Complaint numbers LA/WD/732, 736 and 749 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 three separate complaints have been lodged by Mr David McMillan, Chief Eexecutive, West Dunbartonshire Council, Councillor Ronald McColl, SNP, and Councillor Craig McLaughlin, SNP, (“the complainants”) who allege a contravention of the Code by Councillor James Bollan, Scottish Socialist Party (“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 Councillors' Code of Conduct, and, in particular, the provisions relating to the key principle of Respect in paragraph 2.1, Relationship with Council Employees in paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and Annex C, and in paragraph 3.14.

The relevant parts of the Code state:

“Section 2: Key Principles

2.1 Respect

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

“Section 3: General Conduct

Relationship with Council Employees (Including those employed by contractors providing services to the Council)

3.2 You must respect all Council employees and the role they play, and treat them with courtesy at all times. It is expected that employees will show the same consideration in return.

3.3 Whilst both you and Council employees are servants of the public, you have separate responsibilities: you are responsible to the electorate but the employee is responsible to the Council as his or her employer. You must also respect the different roles that you and an employee play. Your role is to determine policy and to participate in decisions on matters placed before you, not to engage in direct operational management of the Council's services; that is the responsibility of the Council's employees. It is also the responsibility of the Chief Executive and senior employees to help ensure that the policies of the Council are implemented.

3.4 You must follow the Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees attached at Annex C. A breach of the Protocol will be considered as a breach of this Code.

Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee

3.14 You must respect the chair, your colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present within the Chamber during Council or Committee meetings or other formal proceedings of the Council. You must comply with rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of the Council.”

“ANNEX C

PROTOCOL FOR RELATIONS BETWEEN COUNCILLORS AND EMPLOYEES IN SCOTTISH COUNCILS

Principles

1. This protocol sets out the way in which Councils and employees of Councils should behave towards one another. It does not cover all the variety of circumstances which can arise, but the approach which it adopts will serve as a guide to dealing with other issues as they come up.

2. Councillors and employees should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, with neither party seeking to take unfair advantage of their position.

Public comment

20. Councillors should not raise matters relating to the conduct or capability of employees in public. Employees must accord to councillors the respect and courtesy due to them in their various roles. There are provisions in the Code of Conduct for Employees about speaking in public and employees should observe them.”

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 in the performance of his functions in that office.

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.

Outline of the Complaints and Response

The Complaints

2.1 The complaints are set out in letters and complaint forms from three separate complainants.   

Complaint number LA/WD/732 by Mr David McMillan, Chief Executive, West Dunbartonshire Council, alleges misconduct by the respondent, Councillor James Bollan at Council meetings. The complainant said the respondent made accusations against, and swore at, Council officers and administration councillors. He alleged that Councillor Bollan's treatment of the Legal Officer at the meeting on 27 February 2008 and, in particular, the meeting on 26 March 2008 was entirely unacceptable and was an attempt to intimidate, bully and harass Council officers.

Complaint number LA/WD/736 by Councillor Ronald McColl alleges that Councillor Bollan exhibited disrespect towards Councillor Craig McLaughlin at a meeting of the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee on 26 March 2008. He also alleged that the respondent exhibited disrespect towards the Legal Officer and other councillors at the Council meeting later that day.

Complaint number LA/WD/749 by Councillor Craig McLaughlin complains of the respondent's conduct and aggressive manner towards himself at the Corporate and Efficient Governance meeting on 26 March 2008 which he alleges were a prelude to events at the Council meeting later the same day. The complainant also alleges that at the Council meeting on 26 March 2008, Councillor Bollan harassed the Legal Officer and made a number of wild accusations. Also that he became increasingly aggressive and accused the Legal Officer of colluding with the Administration and lying, and refused to withdraw his remarks when requested by the Provost.

The Response

2.2 The response is set out in two emails from the respondent. The respondent provided information about the background to events at the Council meeting on 26 March 2008 and he alleges that at no time did he harass or bully any officer or councillor or use some of the language attributed to him in the complaints. Regarding the allegations made relating to the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee meeting, he agreed that he made a comment to Councillor McLaughlin but said he did this because Councillor McLaughlin had interrupted him. Councillor Bollan did not believe he had breached the Code and in the circumstances of the meetings considered his contributions at both meetings to be measured and restrained.

The Investigation

3.1 To establish the background to the complaints, the Investigating Officer sought and received information from the Council.

3.2 Having considered the documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer proceeded individually to interview the complainants, the respondent and relevant witnesses. The interviews took place on 19 and 26 June and 19 September 2008.

Consideration of the Evidence

Background

4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council has a minority SNP administration. At 26 March 2008 there were 22 members of whom 10 were Labour councillors, 9 SNP, 2 Independent and 1 Scottish Socialist. Councillor Iain Robertson, SNP, is Council Leader. Councillor Dennis Agnew, Independent, is Provost and chairs Council meetings. The respondent, Councillor James Bollan, is the Scottish Socialist member. (A recent change occurred on 3 November 2008 when a Labour member changed party representation from Labour to Independent).

4.2 The complaints were made by Mr David McMillan, who is the Council's Chief Executive, and by Councillors Ronald McColl and Craig McLaughlin who are both SNP members. The complainants allege misconduct by Councillor Bollan at meetings of West Dunbartonshire Council in February and March 2008 and at the Corporate and Efficient Governance meeting in March 2008.

4.3 Complaint number LA/WD/732 was made by Mr David McMillan, Chief Executive. It relates partly to events at the Council meeting on 27 February 2008, and more particularly at the Council meeting on 26 March 2008. The complainant states that Councillor Bollan's treatment of Mr Stephen Brown, the Head of Legal, Administrative and Regulatory Services (the Legal Officer) at these meetings was unacceptable. At the meeting on 26 March 2008, Councillor Bollan said advice given by the Legal Officer was contorted; he made allegations about officers being in cahoots with the Administration and shouted that he was “not prepared to put up with this shite any longer”. Also that he pointed to officers and administration councillors and shouted, “You lot are a fucking lot of shite and I can tell you that this is not going to end here”. The complainant said Councillor Bollan stormed out of the meeting and slammed the door behind him.

4.4 In making the complaint, the Chief Executive also referred to an incident at a previous Council meeting in January 2008. He did not want to make a formal complaint on this matter; it is described here for background purposes and no finding will be made in regard to this. Mr McMillan states that during the Council meeting on 30 January 2008, Councillor Bollan referred to him (the Chief Executive) as being a bully who was attempting to blackmail staff into accepting single status proposals [1] . The minute of the January meeting confirms that, during the debate on an emergency motion on single status, Councillor Bollan was asked to withdraw remarks he had made about ‘blackmail' and ‘bullying', but Councillor Bollan refused to do so. However the complainant says that the respondent apologised to him the following day therefore he did not intend to take this particular complaint further.

4.5 At the Council meeting on 27 February 2008, item 7 on the agenda related to a report on Best Value Improvement Activity. Councillor Black wanted to move an amendment to the report. However, the Legal Officer advised the Provost, as Chair, that the amendment might expose the Council to legal challenge because it could interfere with approved Council terms and conditions of service. Councillor Black did not agree with the Legal Officer's opinion, but the Provost accepted it and did not allow the amendment. The complainant says that Councillor Bollan made comments to the effect that the Legal Officer was trying to control what members say in Council. The minutes of the meeting confirm that the Chief Executive made a statement referring to ‘certain comments having been made by Members'. The Legal Officer's own notes on the meeting refer to Councillor Bollan having made a remark that officers were ‘interfering in the legitimate business of the Council'. The Chief Executive told members at the meeting that he was not prepared to tolerate such criticism of officers and he reminded members of the guidance in the Councillors' Code of Conduct. As a follow up, on 5 March 2008, the Chief Executive wrote to all members again expressing concern and setting out the requirements of the Code. The Chief Executive has said that had this been an isolated incident he would not have raised it in the complaint, but he was concerned that it was becoming part of an accumulative series of events.

4.6 The events which occurred at the Council meeting on the evening of 26 March 2008 were the main subject of the Chief Executive's complaint. They arose out of consideration of proposed motions relating to item 6 on the agenda entitled “Changes to Membership of Committees and Outside Bodies”. The Council meeting was held in Clydebank Town Hall where the Chambers are relatively small and the accommodation is such that, when Council officers and members are seated around the table, the press and public are also in close proximity. The available records of the Council meeting consist of contemporary written notes which were made by the Legal Officer (see below paragraphs at 4.7) the Committee Clerk's notes taken during the meeting (paragraphs at 4.8) and the approved minutes (see paragraph 4.10). Notes provided by Councillor Martin Rooney are also referred to at paragraph 4.20.

4.7 The Legal Officer's Written Notes

4.7.1 The Legal Officer's notes state that late in the afternoon of the meeting, he and the Chief Executive and the Head of Human Resources had been asked to go to the Council Leader's office. Councillor Robertson informed them there was a possibility of an amendment coming forward at item 6 on the agenda which would change the Administration, and there might also be a motion regarding single status; indeed, his own SNP Group might raise a motion on single status. The Legal Officer asked whether the Provost (as Chair) had been consulted and the Council Leader indicated he did not think so. The Legal Officer advised the Council Leader that he saw no business on the agenda which would deal with these items; item 6 had nothing to do with single status and did not, in his view, allow an item to be introduced for a change in the Administration. Such an item should be lodged by way of Motion and it could be dealt with by requisitioning a Special Council Meeting, or the Provost could allow the item as a matter of urgency. Irrespective of which group or which councillor raised an item, if it did not arise directly out of a matter before the Council, the Legal Officer said he would advise the Provost as Chair of the meeting that it was not a competent motion, however, the decision would ultimately be for the Provost to make. Item 6 on the agenda of the meeting on 26 March 2008 included a report by the Executive Director of Corporate Services on Changes to Membership of Committees and Outside Bodies; essentially, it was asking the Council to nominate a member to serve on the Road Safety Forum, to request a change to nominees on six other outside bodies and to note recent changes to membership of committees.

4.7.2 The Legal Officer's notes record that, at item 6 in the meeting, Councillor Robertson did propose a motion regarding single status. It expressed concerns about the number of grading appeals and proposed that a working group be set up comprising Councillors Black and Bollan plus one SNP and one Labour member. The Legal Officer advised the Provost that he did not consider the motion arose out of business before the Council and therefore was not competent. The Provost accepted the advice and ruled accordingly. There was some debate about this among members and the Chief Executive indicated that he would meet with the two group leaders to discuss a working group that would allow councillors to consider various issues relating to single status negotiations. Councillor Robertson then moved that item 6 be agreed per the recommendation in the officers' report. The Legal Officer's notes state that Councillor Bollan shouted he would play no part in the working group because it would be a fix. There is no record in the minutes or in the Committee Clerk's notes of an intervention by Councillor Bollan at that point in the meeting.

4.7.3 The Legal Officer's notes go on to state that Councillor Rooney of the opposition Labour group then tabled an amendment [2] . This took the form of a 24 page document proposing changes to the leadership of the Council, Committee chairpersons, composition of committees and other appointments. If agreed, it would have had the effect of changing the Administration from SNP to Labour. While it was being circulated the Provost asked the Legal Officer if it was competent. The Legal Officer expressed the view that it did not arise directly out of the business before the Council and did not accord with the statutory requirement [3] which only allowed an item of business to be considered if it were included in the agenda three clear days before the meeting, or if the Chair allowed it as a matter of urgency. He indicated that the Council had recently been severely criticised by the Accounts Commission for not conducting business in an open and transparent manner.

4.7.4 In his notes, the Legal Officer states that a number of elected members took exception to his advice; voices were raised and questions asked as to whether the Provost was going to accept the advice. However, the comments were all directed at the advice, rather than at himself as advisor until Councillor Bollan interjected and said the advice being given was contorted. He pointed at the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer and said “you are trying to gag us”. He also said it was a ‘stitch up' and that a meeting had taken place between the Legal Officer, the Chief Executive, the Head of Human Resources and the Council Leader earlier in the day to stitch this matter up. Throughout this he was gesticulating and shouting and the Legal Officer states that eventually he, himself, rose to his feet saying that he was not prepared to accept allegations that his advice was contorted, nor that he was trying to gag people or that there was any form of stitch up. Councillor Black then said he believed the Legal Officer was unprofessional to intervene whilst another Councillor was speaking. At that, the Chief Executive rose to defend the role of officers and to refute the allegations made by Councillor Bollan. The Provost indicated that he was making a ruling and accepting the legal advice that the motion was incompetent

4.7.5 Councillor Bollan continued with what the Legal Officer described in his notes as a rant, accusing officers of being in cahoots with councillors. He was shouting and gesticulating, and said that he was “not prepared to put up with this shite any longer”. He pointed at the Administration councillors saying “You lot are a fucking lot of shite and I can tell you this is not going to end here”. He then stormed from the meeting and slammed the door behind him. At that stage, there was a ten minute recess during which the Legal Officer said various councillors and officers came and expressed their regrets to him and indicated that they thought Councillor Bollan had gone too far. In his notes, the Legal Officer says that, following the recess, the Provost said that, having been in discussion with the Chief Executive, he was going to take the amendment as an urgent item of business. The Legal Officer in turn said that, with Councillor Bollan's departure, this may not be considered as particularly fair, but the Provost indicated to the Council meeting that he now felt the matter should be dealt with. The item of business was then raised as an urgent item, the original Labour amendment now being moved by Councillor Craig McLaughlin, SNP. There was extensive debate lasting approximately 1½ hours. An amendment to preserve the status quo was moved by Councillor Robertson SNP and was carried by 11 votes to 10.

4.8 The Committee Clerk's Notes from the Council meeting on 26 March 2008

4.8.1 Written notes taken by the Committee Clerk during the meeting describe some of the exchanges which took place during item 6. The notes are not verbatim. The Clerk has explained that item 6 proposed some nominations to committees and outside bodies which required Council approval and were not controversial. The Clerk's notes confirm that the Provost did not accept the SNP motion on single status. The following slightly abbreviated extract starts at the point where the Council Leader moved to approve the report on Changes to Committees and Outside Bodies, and the Provost ruled that Councillor Rooney's amendment (described in footnote 2 on page 8) was not competent:

Cllr Bollan:   This is a stitch up

Provost:   I completely reject the accusations that this is a stitch up. I am the Chair and I have taken advice from the Legal Officer.

Cllr Black:   This is unnecessary intervention, how can the paper not be competent?

Cllr Bollan:   (To the Provost) - You are a disgrace to the Chair. (He went on to refer to the meeting between officers and the Council Leader prior to the meeting) - Did Mr Brown, Mr McMillan and Tricia O'Neill meet with the Leader of the Council ...to discuss item 6 Yes or No?

Ch Executive:   (Started to answer and was interrupted)

Cllr Bollan:   Yes or no, was Tricia O'Neill and the Leader present?

Ch Executive:   Yes

Cllr Bollan:   Did you discuss item 6?

Ch Executive:   Yes

Cllr Bollan:   Was there a briefing paper? There was because I've seen it

Cllr Robertson:   (started to speak but was interrupted by Councillor Bollan)

(The Provost told Councillor Bollan to take his seat.)

Cllr Robertson:   I discussed the proposed motion and took legal advice…I have the right to do so. I ….wanted to check if the proposed motion would be competent in law.

(The Provost invited the Chief Executive to speak.)

Ch Executive:   The briefing note referred to earlier did not refer to single status…the discussion was on the competence of the proposed SNP motion. This is being taken way out of context.

Cllr Bollan:   This is a stitch up

4.8.2 The Provost reminded members of the Chief Executive's letter regarding conduct at Council meetings. Councillor Robertson acknowledged the Provost's decision not to accept a motion on item 6 and suggested they move on. Councillor Calvert expressed the opinion that the motion did arise out of the business of the meeting and in response the Provost referred said the item could not be considered unless it appeared in the agenda issued at least 3 days in advance of the meeting, or if, by reason of special circumstances, it was considered a matter of urgency. A number of members continued to question the decision.

The Clerk's notes continued:

Cllr Bollan:   (To the Legal Officer) Can you confirm if this Council has never considered an item of business without 3 days notice?

Legal Officer:   No

Cllr Bollan:     Is it not true that we consider items without 3 days notice every month? Your argument is flawed, officers are gagging this Council, officers have contorted the truth, it's despicable.

Legal Officer:   I'm not prepared to accept this. Are you accusing me of gagging this Council, of contortion? Councillor Bollan who are you accusing?

Ch Executive:   No more. I am not taking any more Provost. Councillor Bollan, I am reporting you to the Standards Commission.

Cllr McLaughlin: Provost, I think we should adjourn this meeting.

(Councillor Bollan left the meeting at this point. There was some further discussion about the ruling and an exchange between the Chief Executive and Councillor Black).

Cllr Black:   Everyone is getting emotional. I am disappointed that the Legal Officer got on his feet to address a member of this Council.

Ch Executive:   Councillor Black, my officers are not in these Chambers to be shot at…..I will not take these ‘stitch up' accusations.

Cllr Black:   I am mindful of caution. The Chief Executive must accept some self criticism about the way he addressed me - not a good way of conducting business. Suggest recess to speak to the Legal Officer about ruling ….consider views on ruling.

4.9 The Clerk said there were members of the public present due to the fact that at the start of the meeting there had been an item where the Health Board's Chief Executive had been invited to address the Council. During interview the Clerk said that Councillor Bollan's conduct was the worst he had seen; in his view it was an attack on officers. When the meeting reconvened after the adjournment, the Provost indicated he was going to take the item tabled (ie Councillor Rooney's amendment) as an urgent item of business. It was now being moved by Councillor McLaughlin, SNP. The Clerk recalled the Legal Officer saying that, with Councillor Bollan's departure, this may not be considered fair. The Labour Group indicated they were not surprised that the item was now being allowed because Councillor Bollan had left and this affected the voting balance in the Chambers. The debate lasted approximately 1½ hours and, after a motion for closure of the debate, an amendment to preserve the status quo was put forward by Councillor Robertson and was carried by 11 votes to 10.

4.10 Record in the Approved Minute of the Council meeting on 26 March 2008

The minute confirms that the Provost ruled Councillor Rooney's amendment was not competent as it did not relate directly to the item of business before the Council. At this point, a number of members challenged the decision. It is recorded that Councillor Bollan made certain accusations about interference of officers in Council business. In reply, the Legal Officer informed Councillor Bollan that his accusations were unacceptable. The Chief Executive informed Councillor Bollan that he would not tolerate such verbal attacks on his officers and as a consequence he would report Councillor Bollan to the Standards Commission. At that point, Councillor Bollan left the meeting. The minute also records that, following the adjournment, after hearing Councillor McLaughlin, the Provost agreed to accept the paper previously circulated by Councillor Rooney as an urgent item of business in accordance with Standing Order No 7. The Provost noted that the business raised in the paper should be debated by Council due to the serious nature of the proposals contained therein.

Information obtained from interviews

4.11 The Chief Executive, Mr McMillan, said during interview that at the February meeting Councillor Bollan had questioned the Legal Officer's advice to the Provost regarding a motion and amendment relating to a Best Value report by Audit Scotland . Councillor Bollan had alleged on that occasion that the Legal Officer was “trying to control what members said in the Council”. Had that been an isolated incident, Mr McMillan said he would not have complained of it, but it was followed by the meeting on 26 March 2008. He said they do get heated debates in the Council, but the meeting on 26 March 2008 was the worst. Among the members asking questions, Councillor Bollan was the most vitriolic. He was loud and his voice was angry, as was his body language. The Management Team (ie the Chief Executive and four departmental Executive Directors) subsequently wrote to all elected members on 22 April 2008. The letter referred to their concerns about the treatment of the Legal Officer which they felt was unacceptable, the use of offensive language and their extreme concern about claims that officers had shown bias to any political party. They asked for support from members to ensure that future meetings would be conducted in a more reasonable fashion, devoid of abusive language and unfounded personal accusations.

4.12 The Council Leader, Councillor Iain Robertson, has confirmed that he asked the Chief Executive, the Legal Officer and the Head of Human Resources to come to his office on the afternoon of the meeting. Having heard that there might be a challenge to the Administration, he presumed that it could only relate to item 6 on the agenda. He has stated that he wanted advice on the legality of raising this, and raising issues relating to single status, in terms of the business on the agenda. He confirmed that the advice given to him by the Legal Officer was as described in the Legal Officer's notes, as set out in paragraph 4.7.1 above.

4.13 Councillor George Black, Independent, was asked to provide information about the Council meeting. During interview, he said that, earlier in the day of the meeting, he had received a telephone call from Councillor Bollan saying that an opportunity could arise to change the Administration. He met with Councillor Bollan that day, but told him he would also like to speak to the SNP as well. At 2.00 pm Councillor Black met with Councillor Robertson, the Council Leader and showed him an addendum on single status which might be raised at item 6. Later, the Leader contacted him and said he had discussed the addendum with senior officers but it had been dismissed. Councillor Black suggested that the Leader meet his members and see what common ground there might be to assure them of his support. Before the meeting, he spoke to Councillor Bollan and showed him a briefing note which he thought had stemmed from the Leader's meeting with senior officers.

4.14 Councillor Black described events when the amendment at item 6 was ruled incompetent. To his recollection, Councillor Bollan said the opposition was being gagged and that a secret meeting had taken place. The Legal Officer got up and Councillor Black thought the officer was overwrought. The Chief Executive also got up and said words to the effect “You're not getting away with that” and “You can't make accusations against officers”. It became fairly heated and had the general air of a bunfight, with other members joining in. As far as Councillor Black was concerned, it was no more contentious than other meetings he had attended. He did not recall the use of expressions like ‘in cahoots with', but recalled Councillor Bollan said something about colluding with the Administration. It was, in Councillor Black's view, the worst managed meeting he had attended and he thought the fault lay with the Chair. The Legal Officer seemed upset and on point of tears, whereas he had always been calm when challenged in the past. Councillor Black thought that what was being challenged was the advice, not the Legal Officer's personal integrity. When the Chief Executive got to his feet it became personal when he threatened to report Councillor Bollan's conduct. The Chief Executive also said “I'm not putting up with this any more” and Councillor Bollan said “You'll not have to, I'm leaving”. As he did so, Councillor McElhill, SNP, said something like “What's up Jim, is it because you can't get your pals in the Labour party in power?” Councillor Bollan then said “Couldn't do worse than that pile of shit”, pointing to the SNP Group. In Councillor Black's view, it was a political comment aimed at the SNP and not at officers. Councillor Black said he had been surprised, not at Councillor Bollan's interjections but at those from officers, especially the Legal Officer. Councillor Black also said that he felt the Chief Executive had harangued him personally, although he believed he had not been discourteous to anyone. He thought that the officers' conduct had not been entirely professional.

4.15 The Provost, Councillor Dennis Agnew, Independent, said there had been tensions at Council meetings since December 2007 when decisions were taken in regard to the funding of the schools regeneration. The January and February meetings were very tense, but he recalled the February meeting as less loaded than the others. The 26 March 2008 meeting was held in the more intimate setting of the Council Chambers in Clydebank Town Hall . The press were in attendance and, in the early part of the meeting at least, there had been a full public gallery because of the presence of the Parents' Association of Clydebank High School and a presentation by the Health Board's Chief Executive. The Provost said that when item 6 came up a motion was tabled by Councillor Rooney which attempted to distort the item of business. The Legal Officer gave him advice that the motion was not competent and he accepted it. Councillor Bollan made some comments in which he appeared to be trying to negotiate with Councillor Rooney to add an addendum to Councillor Rooney's paper; however, Councillor Bollan's comments about the Council officers then came out of the blue. He said that officers do not always tell the truth­­ (as Councillor Agnew recollected it, he did not use the word ‘lying') at which the Legal Officer asked “What are you trying to say?” As exchanges between Councillor Bollan, the Legal Officer and the Chief Executive went on, the Legal Officer said “You have gone too far”. The Provost said the Legal Officer was angry and he was shaking; he had known the officer for 20 years and had never seen him like that before. The Provost said he told Councillor Bollan to adjust his language and urged him to withdraw comments he had made, but he did not do so. As Councillor Bollan was leaving, he pointed to the SNP members saying “these shites” and to the Chief Executive saying “this is not over”; he then slammed the door as he left. The Provost said Councillor Bollan had used vehemence and vitriol for 3 to 4 minutes and he was concerned about what the public thought of it. Speaking about his subsequent decision to allow the motion to be taken after the adjournment, the Provost said that the circumstances had changed. When it had been put forward at item 6, he had been advised that it was not competent in terms of that item of business. However, when Councillor McLaughlin moved the Labour motion after the adjournment, he had asked the Provost to take it as an urgent item. The Provost has stated that he thought it would be best to deal with it. It was not then arising out of a different item of business and he was not advised by either the Chief Executive or the Legal Officer of reasons why he should not take it as a matter of urgency.

4.16 Other persons were also asked to provide information during interview. Councillor Marie McNair, (formerly Labour, now Independent), said she had no recollection of any problem at the 27 February 2008 Council meeting, but the meeting on 26 March 2008 was in general a heated meeting. Labour wanted to take control of the administration and Councillor Bollan had wanted to add an addendum to Councillor Rooney's proposed amendment at item 6. She said Councillor Bollan kept challenging the decision not to consider it, and it was quite fierce. She confirmed having heard Councillor Bollan use the words gagging, colluding and in cahoots. The Legal Officer was upset, which was unusual and out of character, but she said it was understandable as he was being accused. She felt he had just had enough; he had been challenged on several occasions and it was having a cumulative effect. She had no recollection of Councillor Bollan accusing officers of lying, but she confirmed that when he left the room he gestured to the SNP Group and said something about “that shite over there”.

4.17 During interview, the Legal Officer said it was about 9.20 in the evening by the time item 6 on the agenda was reached. Councillor Robertson brought forward his motion on single status. When the Provost accepted the advice and ruled it was not competent, Councillor Robertson accepted this. Then Councillor Rooney moved his amendment, and while the Legal Officer was explaining his advice on this to the Provost, Councillor Bollan interjected with “Rubbish, rubbish”. The Legal Officer said he asked Councillor Bollan twice to desist. As it went on, Councillor Bollan spoke about the advice being contorted. He gesticulated at the Legal Officer and the Chief Executive and said “they are trying to gag us”. Referring to the meeting which officers had attended with the Leader, Councillor Bollan said this had been used ‘to stitch up the motion'. The Legal Officer said he found the remarks very hurtful and he asked Councillor Bollan to withdraw them but he refused to do so. Councillor Black then said he thought the Legal Officer was being unprofessional by speaking while a councillor was speaking. The Chief Executive intervened by saying that Councillor Bollan had overstepped the mark. However, Councillor Bollan reiterated his remarks, and when he referred to officers being in cahoots with councillors, the Legal Officer believed this was directed at himself. When Councillor Rooney asked if the matter could be raised at a future meeting, the Legal Officer advised that this would be possible if supported by a properly raised motion. The Legal Officer said that Councillor Bollan left saying, “I am not prepared to put up with this shite any longer – you are a fucking lot of shite and I can tell you this is not going to end here”. The Legal Officer said the councillor was gesticulating at him, the Chief Executive and the Provost. The Legal Officer said he was shocked and bewildered. He has since left the Council's employment, and although the incident did not, in itself, make him decide to leave, it brought his decision to a head.

4.18 The Executive Director of Corporate Services was newly appointed to her post in January 2008, having come from a private sector organisation. She was shocked by the inappropriateness of what was said. Councillor Bollan's reference to elected members being “gagged” she said was clearly directed at the Legal Officer. Councillor Bollan was on his feet making forceful gestures, with his arms pointing and his body thrown forward in an aggressive manner. The Legal Officer defended his advice but his stature seemed almost physically to crumble and he appeared to be shocked by Councillor Bollan's onslaught. Other members were interjecting with their own views, but none as aggressively as Councillor Bollan. When asked whether the Legal Officer was screaming at the top of his voice (as has been stated by Councillor Bollan) the Executive Director said there was no way this was the case; the Legal Officer is soft spoken, but he was trying to project his voice. She had noted that as Councillor Bollan left the meeting, he gestured towards the SNP and said “lying shit”.

4.19 Councillor Geoff Calvert (Labour) said he had never witnessed anything like the meeting on 26 March. It was clear there was a move to take control of the Council. He said that under Standing Orders, a motion is usually given to the Clerk and circulated, then the mover of the motion speaks to the paper, but in this case Councillor Rooney had hardly said half a dozen words when he was interrupted by the Legal Officer who objected, saying that no notice of the motion had been given. Councillor Calvert said that, to his mind, what followed was officers trying to protect the SNP administration. At one point there were two officers on their feet screaming at two councillors. He tried to ask for clarification on procedure and competency, but both Councillor Black and Councillor Bollan were challenging the officers and the Chief Executive was trying to shout them down. He recalled Councillor Bollan saying the word ‘gagging' but this was in the context of debate being stifled. He also said that Councillor Bollan did refer to a ‘stitch up' and to a ‘secret meeting'. Councillor Calvert agreed the Legal Officer was upset and seemed to be under pressure, but said he was definitely screaming. Councillor Calvert thought the Legal Officer had got himself into a position he could not get out of. Councillor Bollan left the meeting and there was an adjournment. Councillor Rooney was angry and spoke to the Legal Officer during the adjournment, but Councillor Calvert persuaded him to apologise when the meeting resumed. At that stage, the Provost stated he would now take the motion as a voting item. The Labour Group objected because the voting balance had changed; one minute the item had been ruled incompetent, the next it was to be treated as an urgent item to be voted on. Councillor Calvert's view was that the amendment had been competent under Standing Order 15(i). He had written about this, and other things, to the Corporate Management Team in reply to their letter of 30 April 2008.

4.20 Councillor Martin Rooney also prepared a contemporary written statement in which he set out his views and comments about the conduct of agenda item 6. His statement set out the nature of the business before the Council and extracts from Standing Orders. It also referred to the advice given by the Legal Officer to the Provost which Councillor Rooney said was unclear and lacked coherence. He (Councillor Rooney) had attempted to argue that the amendment was competent but was overruled in an aggressive way by the Provost. He and other councillors took exception to this. Councillor Bollan and Councillor Black were on their feet challenging the Legal Officer's interpretation. A highly emotional Councillor Bollan, in particular, accused the Legal Officer of attempting to ‘stitch up' the result, the inference being that Council officers were acting to protect the SNP administration from being removed from office. Councillor Rooney's statement described the Legal Officer and the Chief Executive as being on their feet, loudly arguing with Councillor Bollan; it said both showed a lack of restraint and aggression never witnessed before in West Dunbartonshire Council. After Councillor Bollan left the meeting, and following the subsequent adjournment, the Provost said he would accept the Labour amendment as an urgent item of business. The Labour Group questioned how the item could now be competent, but received no logical explanation; however it was obvious with Councillor Bollan's departure the amendment would be defeated. In Councillor Rooney's statement, he surmised that the SNP assumed that if this were so, their administration would be safe for six months (under the ‘six months rule' which precludes consideration of an item within the ensuing six months period). However, it was confirmed by the Legal Officer that committee memberships were not protected by the six months rule and could be changed at any time.

4.21 During interview, Councillor Rooney said that the officers and the Provost were aggressive and got members' backs up right away. He agreed with Councillor Bollan's view that it was a stitch up. He said Labour members had become aware of Councillor Bollan's proposed addendum regarding a working group on single status; Councillor Rooney had told Councillor Bollan before the meeting that Labour were trying to take over the Council and were looking to see if they could get his support. The SNP got to know because Councillor Bollan shared it with Councillor Black. In Councillor Rooney's view, the Council's SNP Leader decided to bring forward a motion that would be ruled out on pretty much the same wording as Councillor Bollan's addendum. Councillor Rooney said what was done was wrong and he subsequently wrote to the Chief Executive regarding his concerns about how his amendment was dealt with at item 6. It was his view that, in accordance with Standing Orders, the legal advice should have come after the motion was made and spoken to. Councillor Bollan took exception and said it was a stitch up and undemocratic. The Legal Officer said that was a personal attack on him. Then the Chief Executive got up and it was a slanging match. When Councillor Bollan picked up his papers and went to leave, he was goaded by Councillor McElhill. In response he said “…Can't be any worse than that crowd of shite”. This was not directed at officers, as he was gesturing towards the SNP. Councillor Rooney did not recollect Councillor Bollan using the words ‘officers are gagging the Council', although it would not be unusual as he has heard similar comments made at previous meetings in West Dunbartonshire . He did not recollect any accusations of ‘collusion' or ‘lying' being made against officers. Councillor Rooney said he did not condone Councillor Bollan's words against the SNP members, but he felt Councillor Bollan was a victim in this. Had the amendment been allowed to be moved, none of it would have happened.

4.22 There was press coverage following the meeting. An article in the Dumbarton & Vale of Leven Reporter was headed ‘I want rid of that load of *****'. It referred to angry scenes and said a councillor was heard to swear at the ruling SNP group. The article described it as just one incident in a heated session that saw a failed attempt by Labour to overthrow the SNP led Council, but said it was Councillor Bollan who was the main talking point after his tirade. The article said moves to table amendments were ruled incompetent and Councillor Bollan reacted furiously because it prevented him raising an add-on which would have seen a working group set up to look into the pay and conditions situation. Councillor Bollan was quoted as saying “There is a stitch up here. We're trying to gag people from speaking and doing the best for the committee. It will not be tolerated much longer”. The article said that after Councillor Bollan's heated departure, the situation turned even more bizarre when SNP councillor Craig McLaughlin tabled Labour's motion. An article in the Lennox Herald referred to Councillor Bollan having launched a verbal attack on the Legal Officer, suggesting he had been conspiring with SNP councillors and had attempted to gag the Council.   

4.23 Complaint number LA/WD/736 was made by Councillor Ronald McColl SNP who complained about Councillor Bollan's actions at the Council meeting on 26 March 2008 and additionally at the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee (CEGC) meeting earlier on the same day (see paragraph 4.24). In his written complaint, he alleged disrespect by Councillor Bollan towards a Council employee and towards other councillors on two occasions on 26 March 2008. Regarding the Council meeting, he said that Councillor Bollan did not agree with the opinion given by the Legal Officer. Some Labour members were also clearly upset, but Councillor Bollan jumped to his feet and began berating the Legal Officer, saying, “You are in collusion with the Administration” - “You are a liar” - “You are protecting the SNP administration” - “You have had a secret meeting with the Leader of the Council”. Councillor McColl said that apart from the statements being of an inflammatory nature, they were all delivered in a loud, aggressive manner. During interview, Councillor McColl said that Councillor Bollan initially was on his feet for 1 or 2 minutes, and his comments were directed at the Legal Officer and the Chief Executive. He was gesturing to the Legal Officer who was shaking and seemed near to tears. The Provost and Chief Executive tried on a number of occasions to get Councillor Bollan to stop, but he ignored all attempts and finally the Chief Executive had to shout back. Councillor McColl thought Councillor Bollan's final outburst lasted 3 or 4 minutes, with the whole episode lasting about 15 minutes. Councillor Bollan then started to collect his papers and said, “I'm not waiting here. I want rid of that shite around the table”, gesturing towards SNP members. There were some people in the public gallery and Councillor McColl said several appeared shocked and were shaking there heads in disbelief. The language and aggression used by Councillor Bollan was out of order in Councillor McColl's view. He did not think the Provost could have stopped Councillor Bollan shouting, but he could have got up and left, thus adjourning the meeting.

4.24 Describing his complaint about events at the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee (CEGC) on 26 March 2008, Councillor McColl said that Councillor Craig McLaughlin is Chair of the CEGC. During the meeting Councillor Bollan was asking officers questions regarding an item on the agenda, but he seemed to be straying into debate. Councillor McLaughlin asked him if he had finished asking questions and Councillor Bollan replied, “If you just zip it, I'll get to the question”. Councillor McColl said the committee had been discussing voluntary sector grants and there were representatives from the voluntary sector at the meeting. Councillor Bollan asked a question then began to stray from the point. Councillor McLaughlin, as Chair, asked if he was going to put his questions and that was when Councillor Bollan made the ‘zip it' remark in a condescending and aggressive tone. During interview, Councillor McColl said that, on its own, he might not have complained about this, but it was all part of Councillor Bollan's growing tendency to be offensive towards members and officers at meetings. It stemmed from late 2007 when the administration approved a controversial PPP project for the schools estate regeneration.

4.25 Councillor Marie McNair (formerly Labour, now Independent) is also a member of the CEGC. She did not recall hearing the ‘zip it' remark being made by Councillor Bollan at the March meeting, and neither did the Executive Director of Corporate Services who was present. The Legal Officer was in attendance and he did hear the ‘zip it' remark, but he thought it was nothing out of the ordinary at the time.

4.26 Complaint number LA/WD/749 was made by Councillor Craig McLaughlin, SNP, Chair of the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee. He complained of Councillor Bollan's actions at both the CEGC and the Council meetings of 26 March 2008. Regarding the CEGC, he said that Councillor Bollan has made no secret of his disdain for him at every committee which Councillor McLaughlin sits on or chairs. At that meeting, Councillor Bollan was asking questions of an officer. Councillor McLaughlin said that, on one of the responses, Councillor Bollan misheard what the officer said and began to stray into debate. Councillor McLaughlin said he attempted to correct this, at which point Councillor Bollan retorted, “If you just zip it I will get to the point”. Councillor McLaughlin felt throughout the meeting that Councillor Bollan was trying to provoke him into an open argument at the table, and that Councillor Bollan's aggressive manner was a prelude to events at the full Council meeting later in the day.

4.27 Councillor McLaughlin said that West Dunbartonshire Council is no stranger to controversy, but the March Council meeting that evening was the most shocking he had ever attended in 12 years as a councillor. He considers that while councillors attacking each other is acceptable within certain constraints, it is far more unacceptable when officers are berated in a public forum. When Councillor Rooney's amendment was ruled not competent, Councillor Bollan began making assertions and accusing officers that the meeting with the Council Leader was about conspiring with the SNP to defeat the amendment. His attack on officers became increasingly aggressive and he accused the Legal Officer of colluding with the administration and lying. Councillor McLaughlin said he watched an extremely distressed and visibly shaking Legal Officer challenge Councillor Bollan's comments and assertions. Because of the officer's clear distress, Councillor McLaughlin asked the Provost to call an immediate adjournment of the meeting. Councillor Bollan refused to withdraw his remarks despite repeated attempts from the Provost. Then, as Councillor Bollan was leaving, he was asked a question by another councillor. His response (ie when he referred to the SNP as shite) was not only appalling, but it was loud and aggressive and could be heard by members of the public and press.

4.28 Councillor Jim McElhill, SNP, has confirmed that he made a remark to Councillor Bollan while the latter was leaving the Council meeting. He does not recall using the words ascribed to him by others who were present, namely “What's wrong Jim, are you leaving because you can't get your pals in the Labour party in power?” He thinks he said something like, “What's wrong Jim, you are getting your own way anyway”.

Councillor Bollan's response to the complaints

4.29 The respondent, Councillor James Bollan, was elected to West Dunbartonshire Council in 1996. He was formerly a Labour member but is now the Scottish Socialist Party member of the Council. Since May 2007 he has served on the Council and the following committees:

Community Safety and Environmental Services

Corporate Services

Social Justice Committee

Appeals

Housing, Environment and Economic Development

Tendering

Corporate and Efficient Governance

Social Work and Health Improvement Committee

4.30 In his written response to the complaint, Councillor Bollan said he did not believe that he had breached the Code of Conduct and thought his contributions at the relevant meetings were measured and restrained. He said that, along with Councillor Black, Independent, he has been working with Council trade unions since 2005 to have a ‘no detriment' clause in any single status agreement, which will affect around 5000 of the workforce. At item 6 of the 26 March 2008 meeting he was proposing to table an addendum on single status to the amendment that the Labour group intended to move. Early in the day, a draft of the addendum was given by Councillor Black to the Council Leader to see if the SNP would support it. He was later advised of the meeting between the Council Leader and officers, and shortly afterwards a two page briefing paper was produced by the Chief Executive rebutting the contents of the draft addendum. The officers, the SNP administration and the Labour group knew in advance that he would be tabling the addendum at the Council meeting.

4.31 When the Labour motion at item 6 was ruled not competent, Councillor Bollan said the meeting immediately became very rowdy. Labour councillors were on their feet challenging the decision and SNP councillors were on their feet supporting the decision. He was on his feet complaining that, as an opposition councillor, he was being gagged from raising a critical issue affecting 5000 of the workforce. People were talking over each other; there were a lot of raised voices and arms waving and he shouted that it looked as if opposition councillors had been stitched up. The Chief Executive was on his feet and singled him out; saying, “Right that's it, I have had enough of him, I am reporting Councillor Bollan to the Standards Commission, he gets away with this all the time”. Councillor Bollan said he did recall referring to secret/private meetings that took place earlier in the day between the Council Leader and officers to discuss an opposition amendment. He also said it appeared that officers may be protecting the SNP administration. In his opinion, the draft addendum had been given to the SNP in confidence and he did not expect it to be on the agenda for a hastily arranged private meeting where opposition councillors had no input into the discussion. Councillor Bollan said the Legal Officer was on his feet screaming at the top of his voice; the officer was waving his arms about, his face and neck were red with the veins sticking out and he had lost all composure and control. There was a further period of debate and the Provost refused to change his view on the Labour amendment, which effectively killed off any debate on his addendum.

4.32 Councillor Bollan said he stood up and advised the Chair that as an opposition councillor, he would not be gagged on such a serious matter and he would be leaving the meeting in protest. As he started towards the door, Councillor Jim McElhill SNP said, “What's the matter Jim are you away because you can't vote to get your Labour pals back into office?” Councillor Bollan said he bent down to his level and pointed at the SNP members sitting next to Councillor McElhill and said in a normal voice “they could not do any worse than that shit”. Councillor Bollan said that he did not use the language attributed to him during the meeting and only made that comment after he left his seat. Just as he got to the exit, he said the Chief Executive extended his arms in a cross-like gesture, shrugged his shoulders and beamed a broad smile at him as he left. Councillor Bollan said he learned next day that, after he left the meeting, the Chair, again after seeking legal advice, changed his mind and said that not only was the Labour amendment now competent, it was now also an emergency and he intended to take it for debate.

4.33 Councillor Bollan said that at no stage did he use the word “fucking” and stated that at no stage did he call anybody a liar or say there was collusion with the administration. He felt the complaint was very one sided and made no mention of the aggressive behaviour of the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer not only to him but to another councillor (Councillor Black). Councillor Bollan felt if he had said “fucking”, the SNP councillors who sat next to him would have heard and this would have been reflected in their evidence. There were also 4 or 5 journalists present and if this had been said, it would have been printed in the newspapers, but it was not. He felt there was a contradiction between this and what the officers said they heard him say. Councillor Bollan said that at no time did he harass or bully any officer or councillor and at no time did the Chair need to call him to order; he was asked to sit down once, and he did so.

4.34 During interview, Councillor Bollan said it is for the Provost to rule on what is competent, not the Legal Officer. Both Councillor Rooney and he had objected to the Provost's ruling because they felt the change of committee structure was relevant to item 6 - his own interest had been to get an addendum which would have seen a sub-committee formed to deal with single status. Councillor Rooney was on his feet and he, himself, was doing likewise. He confirmed that he did say to the Provost “You are a disgrace to the Chair” in relation to his ruling. When asked if the comment about ‘being gagged' was directed at the Legal Officer, Councillor Bollan said it was not directed at anybody; things were getting heated and members, including Councillor Rooney, Councillor Calvert and Councillor Black were commenting, either on their feet or seated. SNP members were on their feet supporting the Provost's decision. He stated that he did not use the words ‘contorted' or ‘colluding', he was merely making the point that there had been a private meeting to discuss his addendum; officers had been present and he thought it would have been appropriate to have included him.

4.35 Councillor Bollan said the situation deteriorated; the Chief Executive was on his feet, the Provost was talking while sitting down, there were a lot of raised voices and the Legal Officer was up and shouting. Councillor Bollan said he did not know what the Legal Officer was shouting; the officer had completely ‘lost it' and was shouting and screaming at the top of his voice. He was stabbing his finger towards the back of the room, although Councillor Bollan did not know if he was pointing at him. His eyes were rolling in the back of his head. It was unusual for the Legal Officer to be challenged and unusual for him to behave like that. The Chief Executive said he had had enough and was going to report Councillor Bollan to the Standards Commission. When asked why he thought the Chief Executive had said that, Councillor Bollan said he did not know why, but said he did not react to it. There was continuing mayhem after the Chief Executive said that and a few minutes later he decided to leave the meeting because he felt it was a waste of time. At the end of the day, his addendum might have been voted out, but he was annoyed that opposition members were not getting a hearing. He said the comments he made in response to Councillor McElhill's remark as he left the meeting were in his normal tone of voice and his gesture was limited to the SNP group.

4.36 Councillor Bollan did not respond formally to the complaint about events at the Council meeting on 27 February 2008 and had no particular recollection of the meeting. Replying to complaints about the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee, Councillor Bollan confirmed that he did say to Councillor Craig McLaughlin, “Zip it and I will get to the question”. He said Councillor McLaughlin had interrupted him a couple of times in his preamble to a question to an officer. Councillor Bollan found this unacceptable because one of his roles as an opposition councillor is to scrutinise, expose, question and hold the administration to account. He said he will not be badgered or gagged while trying to carry out this responsibility. The item being discussed related to proposals to allow the voluntary sector to disburse grants. Councillor Bollan thought councillors should continue to distribute grant money. There was an officer's report but it did not answer some points.

[1] Single Status Agreement – a national agreement whereby all jobs within its scope in a local authority are graded on a common basis in accordance with fairness and equal pay legislation .

[2] An amendment proposing changes set out in a 24 page Appendix and relating to:

(1) spokesperson/chairpersons as set out in Part 1 of the Appendix, (2) revised political make up of committees and to the Administration's nominations in respect of membership, chairs and vice-chairs of these committees as in Part 2 of the Appendix, (3) changes in memberships of Working Groups as shown in Part 3 of the Appendix, (4) other changes shown in Parts 3 to 6 of the Appendix, (5) Opposition members invited to notify their nominations in writing, and (6) invite Opposition to populate their allocation as specified in the Appendix.

[3] Section 50B Local Government ( Scotland ) Act 1973

Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complainants allege that Councillor James Bollan contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this Report.

5.2 They allege that at Council meetings on 27 February and 26 March 2008, and at the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee meeting also on 26 March 2008, Councillor Bollan's conduct and his treatment of the Council's Legal Officer and other councillors was unacceptable. It is alleged that Councillor Bollan breached the provisions in section 2.1 of the Code relating to Respect, in paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and Annex C regarding Relations Between Councillors and Employees, and Conduct in the Chamber in paragraph 3.14.

West Dunbartonshire Council meeting held on 27 February 2008

5.3 Dealing firstly with complaint number LA/WD/732 by Mr David McMillan, Chief Executive, concerning conduct at the Council meeting on 27 February 2008, it was alleged that Councillor Bollan made comments to the effect that Mr Stephen Brown, Head of Legal and Administrative Services (the Legal Officer), was trying to control what members say in Council. The minutes record that some comments were made and the Chief Executive highlighted his concern about this. However, there is lack of clarity in the information available, as described in paragraph 4.5 above, and little recollection from witnesses concerning the 27 February 2008 meeting. In view of this, it is not appropriate to make a finding that a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred during that meeting. Indeed, the Chief Executive has said that he would not have made a complaint about the matter in isolation from events at the next Council meeting in March. I therefore find that there was insufficient evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor James Bollan in regard to the complaint about his conduct at the Council meeting on 27 February 2008.

Corporate and Efficient Governance meeting held on 26 March 2008

5.4 The meeting of the Corporate and Efficient Governance Committee on 26 March 2008 was the subject of complaints numbers LA/WD/736 and LA/WD/749. The complaints were made by Councillors Craig McLaughlin and Ronald McColl. Both complaints concerned the remark made by Councillor Bollan when the Committee was considering an item on grant awards. Councillor McLaughlin, as Chair, intervened to try and move the discussion forward and Councillor Bollan told him to ‘zip it'.

5.5 It is part of the Chair's duties to ensure the efficient conduct of the meeting, consistent with allowing members to make their contributions to the business before the committee. Councillor Bollan felt he had not yet had sufficient opportunity to do so. There are, of course, ways of making such a point that do not require making an aggressive comment. To tell the Chair to ‘zip it' was gratuitously impolite. However, it was a one-off remark which, taken on its own, would not lead to a finding of a breach of the Code of Conduct. Councillor McColl has said he saw it as a prelude to events which occurred later in the day, and he would not have made the complaint were it not for what happened at the Council meeting. In consideration of these circumstances, I have decided that the remark by Councillor Bollan did not go so far as to breach the provisions in section 2 relating to Respect for other councillors, or the requirements of paragraph 3.14 of the Code. I find, therefore, that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Bollan in regard to this part of the complaint.

West Dunbartonshire Council meeting held on 26 March 2008

5.6 All three complaints numbers LA/WD/732, 736 and 749 by Mr David McMillan, Councillor Ronald McColl and Councillor Craig McLaughlin raised allegations about Councillor James Bollan's conduct at the Council meeting of 26 March 2008. I have noted that there are varying descriptions among the parties as to the precise use of words, phrases or expressions, or the gestures allegedly made by Councillor Bollan in the course of item 6 of the meeting. However, I am able to summarise what occurred and to make the following findings in regard to events at the meeting:-

5.6.1 Agenda - Item 6 of the agenda of the Council meeting was entitled “Changes to Membership of Committees and Outside Bodies” and included a report by the Executive Director of Corporate Services. The report was limited in nature and confined to asking the Council to consider making changes to nominations to outside bodies and to note changes to the membership of committees.

5.6.2 Preliminary Meeting - In the afternoon prior to the meeting, the Council Leader – Councillor Robertson - asked the Chief Executive, the Head of Legal and Administrative Services (the Legal Officer) and the Head of Human Resources to meet with him and they did so. He informed the officers there was a possibility of an amendment coming forward at item 6 on the agenda which would change the Administration. He also said there might be motions coming forward regarding single status, including one by his own SNP group. He asked for advice on the legality of these items being raised in terms of the business on the agenda. The Legal Officer advised the Council Leader that he saw no business on the agenda which would deal with these items; item 6 had nothing to do with single status and did not, in his opinion, allow an item to be introduced for a change in the Administration. Such an item should be lodged by way of motion and it could be dealt with by requisitioning a special Council meeting, or the Provost could allow the item as a matter of urgency. The Legal Officer asked if the Provost had been consulted and the Council Leader indicated he did not think so. The Legal Officer said that, irrespective of which group or which councillor raised an item, if it did not arise directly out of a matter before the Council, he would advise the Provost that it was not a competent motion, however, the decision would ultimately be for the Provost to make. The advice given to the Leader by the Legal Officer was consistent with the advice which he gave the Provost at the Council meeting later in the evening.

5.6.3 Council Meeting - Shortly after 9.30pm item 6 came up for discussion. Councillor Robertson circulated a motion on single status to all members of the Council (Appendix F). After hearing the Legal Officer, the Provost ruled that the motion was not competent as it did not relate directly to the item of business before the Council. Cllr Robertson then moved to approve the recommendations of the Executive Director's report (namely to make a nomination to the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum, to approve appointments to outside bodies and to note changes to committee membership) all as set out in the minute (Appendix J).

  5.6.4 Cllr Rooney then circulated a copy of his amendment (proposing changes to the Council Leadership and membership and political balance of committees) to all Members of the Council (Appendix G). After hearing the Legal Officer, the Provost ruled that the motion was not competent as it did not relate directly to the item of business before the Council. A number of members questioned and challenged the Provost's decision. In particular, the respondent challenged the ruling for a period of some two minutes gesticulating loudly during which he said,

(i)   there had been a “stitch up” and a ‘secret' meeting between the officers - namely the Chief Executive, the Legal Officer and the Head of Human Resources - and the Council Leader

(ii)   that the officers - namely the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer - were “gagging the Council”

from both of which an inference could reasonably be taken that the officers were acting improperly to prevent the amendment by Councillor Rooney from being discussed and showing favour towards the SNP administration.

5.6.5 At this stage the Provost reminded the members of the importance of ensuring their conduct at the meeting was consistent with the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. Councillor Calvert opined that the motion did arise out of business of the meeting and in response the Provost said the motion could not be considered unless it appeared in the agenda issued at least 3 days in advance of the meeting, or if, by reason of special circumstances, it was considered a matter of urgency.

5.6.6 Having regard to the terms of Councillor Robertson's original motion and of Councillor Rooney's amendment, the Provost's ruling to regard them as incompetent was proper in law. It was open to any member to move that either the original motion or the amendment, be taken as a matter of urgency at the meeting or alternatively have them placed on the agenda of the next or a special meeting of the Council for debate. No proposal to have them treated as an urgent item of business was moved by any member at that time.

5.6.7 A number of members had continued to question the Provost's ruling, but none of them questioned the Legal Officer's personal standing in the manner exhibited by the respondent. Councillor Bollan continued to challenge the Legal Officer's advice and the ruling for a further period of some three minutes, again gesticulating loudly, during which he said that officers, namely the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer, were “gagging the Council”, and “contorting the truth, it's despicable”. An inference could readily be taken that the officers, namely the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer, were acting improperly and showing favour towards the SNP administration. Indeed, exactly such a conclusion was drawn in one of the press articles (Appendix H) which reported Councillor Bollan as having “launched a verbal attack on the Legal Officer, suggesting he had been conspiring with SNP councillors and had attempted to gag the Council”. Another press article (Appendix I) described his contribution as a “tirade”.

  5.6.8 In the interest of completeness, I should record that I do not consider there is evidence that Councillor Bollan used the word ‘fucking' or that he accused the Legal Officer outrightly of ‘lying' or ‘being a liar' during the meeting.

5.6.9 The Legal Officer was considerably upset by the respondent's statements saying at one point “I'm not prepared to accept this. Are you accusing me of gagging this Council, of contortion? Councillor Bollan who are you accusing?” The Chief Executive then intervened and said he was not prepared to accept the inappropriate accusations being made by the respondent against the Legal Officer and that he would be reporting the respondent to the Standards Commission. The respondent did not withdraw any of his comments.

5.6.10 The respondent picked up his papers and prepared to leave the meeting room and, as he did so, he reacted to a comment by Cllr McElhill (SNP) who has generally been quoted as saying, “What's up Jim, is it because you can't get your pals in the Labour party in power?” or words to that effect. The respondent then pointed towards SNP members and said, “they couldn't do worse than that load of shite and I tell you it's not going to end here” or words to that effect.

5.6.11 The respondent then left the meeting which was adjourned for a short period. On reconvening and after hearing Councillor Craig McLaughlin, the Provost agreed to accept the paper previously circulated by Councillor Rooney which proposed changes to the political composition and membership of committees, working groups etc., as an urgent item of business. Councillor McLaughlin, seconded by Councillor R McColl, moved that the Council approve the paper circulated by Councillor Rooney as set out in the minute (Appendix J). As an amendment, Councillor Robertson seconded by Councillor J. McColl, moved that the status quo be maintained. On a vote being taken, 11 Members voted for the amendment and 10 for the motion. The amendment was accordingly declared carried.

5.7 The findings set out in paragraphs 5.6.4 to 5.6.7 above are to the effect that Councillor Bollan used words which implied the Legal Officer was improperly siding with the administration in terms of the advice he was giving to the Provost. The fact was that officers had been asked by the Council Leader to attend a meeting with him and advise on matters which the Leader was aware were going to come up at the meeting. It is the duty of officers to give advice and the Legal Officer consistently did that, including informing the Leader that he would advise the Provost that the SNP's own motion was not competent. Councillor Bollan made accusations in open forum against the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer and he did so with no foundation and in such a manner that a reasonable inference could be drawn that the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer had acted partially towards the SNP administration and improperly prevented Councillor Rooney's amendment from being discussed, thereby impugning their professional integrity, being disrespectful and causing significant stress to both, particularly to the Legal Officer. While other councillors challenged the decision, it is notable from the evidence of witnesses and from the press reports that only Councillor Bollan made personal allegations and accusations against the Legal Officer. I find that Councillor Bollan's general conduct at the meeting towards the Chief Executive and the Legal Officer amounted to a breach of the Code of Conduct and contravened the Key Principle of Respect in paragraph 2.1, the rules of general conduct in paragraphs 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.14 and the provisions in paragraphs 2 and 20 of Annex C of the Code.

5.8 The findings set out in paragraph 5.6.10 above are that in his comments directed towards SNP members, Councillor Bollan did resort to foul language which has no place in the conduct of public business - and he did so in the presence of public and press. Councillor Bollan sees his duty as an opposition councillor to scrutinise, expose, question and hold the administration to account. There is nothing to stop him doing that, but it should not become an excuse for referring to other members of the Council in the manner in which he referred to SNP councillors as he left the meeting. He states that it was a political gesture; it was not; it was an ill-natured, foul mouthed action showing considerable disrespect to SNP councillors, and is tempered only by the fact that it was made in immediate reaction to a remark by an SNP member. Moreover, it was said in public and made headlines. This cannot inspire much public confidence in the way in which Council business is carried out in West Dunbartonshire . I find, therefore, that Councillor Bollan's conduct towards other councillors breached the Code of Conduct and contravened the Key Principle of Respect in paragraph 2.1 and the rules of General Conduct in paragraph 3.14 of the Code.

5.9 In relation to complaint numbers LA/WD/732, 736 and 749, in so far as they relate to the actions of Councillor James Bollan at the meeting of West Dunbartonshire Council on 26 March 2008, I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the findings in section 5 and in particular paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of this Report, Councillor James Bollan has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

30 December 2008