Two city councillors, Neil Ross and Marie-Clair Munro were censured by the Standards Commission on Wednesday after a hearing held at the City Chambers.
The two elected members attended the Transport and Environment Committee in June 2023 when the Braid Estate Quiet Route was being considered. They both failed to disclose an interest at the committee meeting, and also at a workshop connected to the same matter.
The Standards Commission heard at a panel meeting that at the time of both meetings Cllr Ross lived on a parallel road to the Quiet Route, and Cllr Munro lived on the road itself – even though it was on a part which was not part of the redesign.
The Panel said it was satisfied that a connection existed between the two councillors and the Quiet Route which was being discussed.
In the Councillors Code of Conduct it is made clear that any councillor must declare any connection to a matter under consideration. This runs with an objective test – “would a member of the public armed with the relevant facts, reasonably regard the connection to the particular matter as being so significant that it would be considered as being likely to influence their discussion or decision making.”
The panel noted that the questions of whether the councillors’ connections actually influenced their discussion or decision-making; the outcome of the meetings or workshop, whether any decision made had an actual impact on their property (either positive or negative), and any public support for decisions made, were not relevant to the question of whether they should have declared an interest.
While the Panel accepted that where the councillors lived may not have actually influenced their decision-making at the meeting, it noted that the objective test is exactly that – objective.
In other words, it is not about what a councillor might know about their own motivations and whether any connection would unduly influence them or affect how they contributed to any discussion. Instead, it is a matter of what others would reasonably think, if they were in possession of the relevant facts.
Dr Lezley Stewart, Standards Commission Member and Chair of the Hearing Panel, said: “The Panel found that Cllrs Ross and Munro failed to declare a non-financial interest in relation to matters concerning the Braid Estate ‘Quiet Route’ and, instead, took part in the discussion and decision-making. This was despite them having a connection to the matter by virtue of where they lived”.
The Panel said it was satisfied that in this case the relevant facts to the objective test included that the location of the properties owned by the two councillors were so close to the Quiet Route that any change to the traffic set up there and the impacts of that to traffic volume, parking and pedestrian and cycle routes were likely to be affected by where they lived. The panel also decided that the councillors at the meeting and workshop were being asked to decide how the future of the Quiet Route would be planned.
A spokesperson for the Standards Commission stated: “The Panel considered that, having applied the objective test both Cllrs Ross and Munro should have reached the view that a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, as outlined above, would reasonably regard their connections as being so significant that they would be considered as being likely to influence their discussion or decision-making. This was because it was evident any decision or potential decision resulting from consideration of these matters would likely have a direct impact on the road in question and any nearby streets.”
The Panel agreed that both councillors should have declared an interest, withdrawn from the meetings and taken no part in the discussion and decision-making on the matter. The Panel found that their failure to do so amounted to a breach of the Code.
In reaching its decision on sanction, the Hearing Panel noted that both councillors had co- operated with the investigative and Hearing processes. The Panel was satisfied that there was no attempt by either Respondent to conceal their connections, or any evidence that the councillors benefitted financially or personally.
Dr Stewart noted: “The Panel emphasised that the requirement for councillors to declare interests is a fundamental requirement of the Code as it gives the public confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest, and not the personal interest of any councillor or their friends, family or close associates. A failure to comply with the Code’s requirements in this regard can erode confidence in the Council and leave its decisions open to legal challenge.”
A full written decision of the Hearing will be issued and published on the Standards Commission’s website within 14 days.
A censure is a formal record of the Standards Commission’s severe and public disapproval of the Respondent.
