Sifting through potential for conflicts of interests

A report by officers on the future of councillors’ representation on 50 external bodies sparked a row between Stirling councillors.

At the latest council meeting, a motion by SNP group leader Scott Farmer was defeated by 12 votes to nine. It had asked the council to remit the paper back for further consideration and cross party talks, and that recommendations be brought forward to the March 2017 full council meeting to inform the new council following the 2017 elections in May.

However, the Tories and Labour voted through council leader Johanna Boyd’s motion to consider future governance and financial monitoring arrangements for all ALEOs at committee level in the coming months.

Councillor Farmer said:“This is a very complex paper and a lot of interesting points are made. But I feel there’s a need to take a step back and give this further in-depth consideration.

“In terms of conflict of interests, I believe they can be managed and we would be there in terms of assuring that ALEOS established by this council are adhering to the values of this council. Sometimes we have been in situations where something has been found to be working against the objectives of the council. If anything becomes a concern we can alert the council to that. Elected members have a duty to ensure the public pound is spent well. I don’t think withdrawing from the likes of STEP, the SDA (Stirling Development Agency) etc., would be achieving that goal.”

Finance convener Neil Benny, said, however:“I am on the boards of a lot of these organisations myself. There have been a number of times when you end up in conflict not only over the council but when the boards conflict with each other. We need time to put governance into place. We also need to be assured that people being put on these outside organisations have the skillset we need.

“People also say‘I’ll sit on this or that village board’not knowing if it goes belly up they could be personally liable for any debts. The point is we should have a positive co-operative relationship with these organisations.”

Fellow Conservative councillor Martin Earl said:“At the beginning of this council, I was appointed as a councillor to the board of McLaren Leisure Centre. I went to the board but they said thanks but we don’t want a councillor on the board. I have not been to meetings because I don’t want to force the issue.”

Labour’s John Hendry said:“I think I share both sides of the argument. We as councillors have a hierarchy of responsibilities, some that require greater scrutiny than others. I think it’s important we get involved in local groups which is where the amendment has come from this side.

“I think we just need to get our heads round some of the fairly complicated detail and not get too hung up on any conflict and if there is then just hang back. I’m content that the amendment that’s been put down to bring this back to committee so it can be discussed properly fits the bill as far as everyone is concerned.”

Green councillor Mark Ruskell said:“There have been some good points raised about particularly smaller organisations but I have to share Councillor Farmer’s concern about some of the larger organisations and my concern would be that we would lose some of the public sector concerns. We need to have some kind of oversight and governance within that.”

Labour’s Councillor Corrie McChord said: “There are historical lists of organisations that have councillors on their boards. I think rather than churning out old lists we need to look more closely at things. We recently had four members of this council who had to sit outside when an important decision had to be made about a tender [because they sat on boards where there could have been a potential conflict of interests].”