Call for review of complaint about councillor voted down
A CALL for an independent review of the complaint by council officers into Councillor Michael Breslin’s conduct has been defeated in Kilmory Castle chamber.
Councillor Breslin was cleared of five of six charges of breaching the code of conduct in October. A hearing of the Standards Commission for Scotland cleared Mr Breslin on the grounds he was entitled to make robust comments to council officials under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the panel did censure the independent Argyll and Bute councillor for one breach of failing to treat an officer with respect. Councillor Breslin, it said, had breached the code in ‘in respect of an email he sent to the council’s head of governance [Charles Reppke] on December 29, 2014.
‘Councillor Breslin chose to circulate the email to a number of individuals, which resulted in the email being published on the ForArgyll website before the head of governance had the opportunity to reply. Publication on this website resulted in highly critical comments being directed at the head of governance. This demonstrated a lack of courtesy and respect to the officer.
The hearing panel considered that, by his actions, Councillor Breslin had undermined mutual trust and respect between himself and a senior officer.’
In a statement to the full Argyll and Bute Council meeting in Kilmory Castle on Thursday November 24, chief executive Cleland Sneddon said suggestions the action was ‘politically motivated or coordinated’ are ‘inaccurate and untrue – any repetition of such allegations given this clear statement will be a deliberate misrepresentation.
‘Recent communications suggested the outcome has been an exoneration of the elected member or a vindication of his behaviours. The outcome is that a number of breaches put to them were not found to have been established, and that one of the breaches put forward by the commissioner was found and a sanction imposed which hopefully members will reflect on. There are no grounds for any compensation to be paid by officers who exercised their rights.’
He added that conducting an independent inquiry into the officers’ conduct would penalise them exercising their rights and ‘send a message to your employees that they can be subjected to threatening or intimidatory behaviours or public criticism which they are unable to answer and if they seek protection they would risk being the subject of investigation’.
A motion was then put forward noting the verdict and confirming the council’s ‘confidence that council officers have and will continue to behave professionally and engage appropriately with all elected members’.
It also affirmed ‘that every citizen, including council officers, if they have concerns about the behaviour or actions of an elected member, has the right to make representations with the commissioner for ethical standards in public life’.