Councillor accused of sexual harassment escapes suspension
A FORMER SNP councillor accused of sexual harassment has dodged suspension, despite warnings from a watchdog that remaining in his role could potentially cause “harm to others” if such behaviour happened again.
Lewis Ritchie quit the SNP group at the City of Edinburgh Council in
March 2018, before party bosses could discipline him, after being accused of sexually harassing two women.
One of the complainants claimed Mr Ritchie tried to climb into her bed after a boozy night out at the 2017 SNP conference, while a party activist alleged he tried to kiss her in the back of a taxi after a party fundraising event.
He was also accused of punching a male colleague while in the back of another taxi at the 2017 party conference.
When the allegations emerged in February 2018, Mr Ritchie denied the claims – but admitted he had a drink problem.
Mr Ritchie remains an independent councillor after ignoring calls to quit and last year joined up with fellow
SNP exiles Gavin Barrie and Claire Bridgman in forming the Edinburgh Party of Independent Councillors.
The Ethical Standards Commissioner (ESC) is still investigating the allegations “of a serious nature... towards a number of individuals over a period of time”.
The Standards Commission has decided not to suspend him, partly over concerns about his “health and financial wellbeing”.
In an interim report from the Standards Commission, the ESC warned that “there was a potential adverse impact on those affected by Councillor Ritchie’s conduct if he was allowed to continue to act as a councillor while the investigation was ongoing”.
But she added “there was no suggestion, at this stage, that a suspension was required to protect witnesses or that cooperation with the investigation would be inhibited without a suspension”.
In response, Mr Ritchie said he “disputes the version of events” and claimed he was not acting as a councillor when the alleged incidents took place – at an SNP conference and after a party fundraiser.
According to the Standards Commission report, Mr Ritchie claims he has had “professional and positive interactions with councillors and council staff” and there have been
“no complaints made in relation to his behaviour”.
The report adds: “Councillor Ritchie further advised that the imposition of an interim suspension could have a detrimental impact on his family and also on his health and financial wellbeing.”
But the Standards Commission panel has decided not to suspend Mr Ritchie while the investigation continues.
In her interim report, Lorna Johnson, chief executive of the Standards Commission, said: “The panel recognised that a failure to impose an interim suspension could potentially lead to harm to others, particularly if any of the conduct that was the subject of the allegations was repeated.
“The panel further recognised that public confidence in the ethical standards framework and a council itself can be adversely affected if elected members are allowed to continue to act while complaints of a serious nature are outstanding against them.”
She added: “The panel noted, however, that the matters that were the subject of the complaint had occurred some two years previously, and that there was no evidence or suggestion that further complaints or concerns about Councillor Ritchie had been made or raised since then, despite him having continued in his role as an elected member and having attending council meetings.
“In addition, the panel accepted the imposition of an interim suspension could have a detrimental impact on Councillor Ritchie’s health and financial wellbeing. The panel was satisfied there was insufficient evidence of a risk of substantive potential harm to others, that could outweigh this, if an interim suspension was not imposed.”
Mr Ritchie said: “I welcome the fact the Standards Commission has chosen not to suspend me after looking into this case and I will be able to continue to represent my constituents at council.
“I have consistently denied these accusations, which are between two and four years old. As this matter has not yet concluded, I can make no further comment at this time.”
There was no suggestion, at this stage, that a suspension was required to protect witnesses