Independent Clackmannanshire councillor Archie Drummond believes Standards Commissioner for Scotland hearing panel "got it wrong" after he has been suspended for six months

Following four days of hearing evidence, a Standards Commission for Scotland ruling panel found last Friday that Clackmannanshire North Ward independent representative Archie Drummond breached the Councillor's Code of Conduct on three charges.

As the Advertiser reported previously, the councillor first appeared in front of the commission at the end of February to respond to the allegations.

It was found that he did engage in direct operational management of the council's services, did not follow the Protocol for Relations Between Councillors and Employees, did not respect council employees and the role they play and did not treat them with courtesy at all times, all contrary to the code.

Ian Gordon, chair of the panel, explained the councillor became involved in a complex housing and childcare case, which has been described as “highly sensitive” and as “a thorn in the flesh of the council” by others, while he was representing a constituent between 2012-15, “but lost sight of his responsibilities”.

He said the councillor had aligned himself with the constituent and her lawyer and his conduct lead to a lack of trust between himself and council officers.

Some of his language, used in emails and face-to-face, was found to be discourteous and disrespectful.

Councillor Drummond had denied any wrongdoing throughout the hearing, saying he was representing the interest of his constituent as part of his duty as an elected member.

He said he did not engage in direct operational management and never gave any instructions to officers, instead, he was simply asking questions as part of his duty to scrutinise services.

• Sanction

Ian Gordon suspended the councillor, convener of the Resources and Audit Committee and member of various other committees, for six months.

The chair explained: “In reaching its decision, the hearing panel noted the evidence given on behalf of the respondent in mitigation, noted the contribution the respondent has made to public life, including 30 years of public service, recognised the respondent's commitment to representing the interests of his constituents.

“However, the hearing panel considered the contravention of the code was serious in nature. The aim of the code is to make sure there's mutual trust and respect in the relationships between councillors and officers and a mutual understanding of their roles to enable the council to effectively function.”

He said the panel was concerned that despite his background as an officer in a local authority and extensive experience in the public sector, councillor Drummond did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the code, was seeking to influence operational decision-making and it was not persuaded he reflected on his conduct.

He added: “The respondent had not shown an understanding of his duty to represent the council as a whole.”

• “Did not and will not defend the indefensible”

The councillor disagrees with the decision and believes the panel “got it wrong”.

In a statement earlier this week, he said: “Three people took the view that I had breached the code.

“Clearly, having spent several days putting the opposite view, I disagree with them and in the last 24 hours many more than three local people, including a number of my fellow councillors, have also stated disagreement with their decision.

“The three have the power to make their decision based on their interpretation of the evidence they heard and, while I recognise that, I firmly believe they got it wrong.

“One reason given for their decision was that I aligned myself too closely to my constituents. I hope I am guilty of that because that is what I believe a councillor is there to do and that my community will rightly accept no less.

“Another reason stated was that in being critical of the performance of Clackmannanshire Council, I was failing in my duty to the council.

“An example of this that was put to me was that when I wrote to a constituent agreeing that the council’s failure to communicate effectively and create circumstances referred to by others as a 'debacle', I crossed some line of acceptability.

“The council apologised to me at the time for this performance failure, but it seems that a councillor shouldn’t criticise shabby service to a constituent. I think that is not only wrong and unfair, but acts against improvement in service delivery.

“I did not and will not defend the indefensible.”

He said “lots of very good people” work with the local authority for the benefit of the community, but things do go wrong, “particularly at senior management level” and bosses should “face up to that and support front line staff to take the right action”.

• “Danger” in decisions like this

Throughout the hearing, the councillor maintained he was only asking questions to scrutinise services, as part of his duty. He said when communicating with officers, he only asked that his constituent's interests are taken into account, adding that he was not giving instructions, nor was he seeking to engage in direct operational management.

However, presiding officer Claire Gilmore highlighted that performance management of individual employees was a matter for managers within the council's services and argued the councillor's tone and style was managerial.

According to the code of conduct, councillors set policies, officers and employees take action to achieve the desired outcomes and then, councillors scrutinise the results and the services' performance.

The councillor continued: “Social work services, which lay at the heart of this case which stretches back over years, continues to be a matter of concern to councillors who hear their constituents' experiences and the main political parties are united in seeking to address this.

“Everyone accepted that I had nothing personal to gain from my actions and at all times sought to represent the interests of my constituents.

“The brighter among my fellow councillors see the danger in decisions like this. No one will argue that councillors shouldn't behave impolitely or aggressively toward anyone, but if councillors are further constrained in representing local people, who then is to help them deal with service failure or shabby performance.

“My constituents know the sort of problems they bring to me and the difficulties they encounter when dealing with the council and other agencies.

“Very often the matters raised have a considerable impact on their lives and that is where I believe a councillor should target her or his energy.

“Sitting in a room with more solicitors than anyone should ever need, debating at length the meaning or interpretation of three or four words might be interesting for some, but it does nothing for the local people who are wrestling with serious issues and looking for help.”

• Business as usual, except he will have more time to help

Council chief executive Elaine McPherson, who it is understood originally raised the complaint and was a witness for the investigating officers, said the Ethical Commissioner for Standards in Public Life undertook an independent investigation into complaints and found there had been breaches in the code and referred the matter to the Standards Commission for Scotland, an independent body.

She recounted what happened during the hearing and added: “Once [the] council receives the commission's full written decision, [a] report will be submitted to full council for consideration and comment by elected members, as is required by legislation.

"The Standards Commission is an independent body, whose purpose is to encourage high ethical standards in public life through the promotion and enforcement of codes of conduct."

Councillor Drummond concluded his statement by saying: “It is ironic that their decision to suspend my attendance at meetings for a few months gives me more time to concentrate on the concerns of my community.

“So, if you do have difficulty getting an appropriate response from the council give me ring or come to my surgery. In that regard it is business as usual except that I now have more time help out.”

The independent councillor, representative in Tillicoultry, Alva, Coalsnaughton and Devonside, is available on the phone: 07881 832 301 or via email: adrummond@clacks.gov.uk.