Falkirk councillor suspended for three months over 'bullying' email
A Falkirk councillor has been suspended for three months after sending an angry email that said he wanted to "get advice on the suspension of an officer" and threatened to involve the police and a solicitor.
A hearing of the Standards Commission today (Thursday) found that Independent councillor Billy Buchanan, who represents Bonnybridge and Larbert, had sent an email regarding a member of Falkirk Council' s planning staff that "amounted to bullying".
Morag Ferguson, Standards Commission member and chair of the hearing panel, said: 'The panel found that, in an email of 9 June 2023, Cllr Buchanan was disrespectful towards a planning officer of the council. The panel further found that Cllr Buchanan's conduct, in respect of the email, amounted to bullying, even if this had not been his intent.'
Members heard that the email, sent on June 9, 2023, read: "I am looking for a meeting with officials and Councillor K to make a formal complaint and get advice on the suspension of an officer pending the outcome of an investigation."
The email referred to a controversial planning application that had been turned down by council officers, before Falkirk Council's planning review committee granted permission for the development to go ahead, subject to a legal agreement being signed.
Baillie Buchanan told the panel that the application had sparked abuse that had affected both him and his family as well as other councillors involved.
When the applicant's agent contacted him to say that the legal agreement had still not been signed months later, Baillie Buchanan emailed officers to ask that the matter be investigated.
Several months later, he received another email - this time from a fellow councillor, who was not named - to say that the matter was still not resolved.
A senior planning officer replied to advise members that the delay was caused by the introduction of new planning policy by the Scottish Government.
But the panel found that Cllr Buchanan then sent an email, on 2 June 2023, to the other councillor and managers from the senior planning officer's team stating that he wanted 'an immediate investigation' into the situation and the concerns expressed regarding the senior planning officer's 'part in the handling' of the application.
This was followed by the email on June 9, which suggested Cllr Buchanan was looking for advice "on the suspension of an officer" and referred to getting the police and his personal solicitor involved.
He signed off the email saying, "It's scandalous!"
Baillie Buchanan insisted that the reference to the police and his solicitor was not directed at the officer but had been because he and his family, along with other councillors, had been subjected to horrendous abuse because of the decision to grant planning permission.
Baillie Buchanan said he had "never at any stage accused the complainant of anything" but he admitted it had been frustrating to send a complaint about a delay and "months and months later" to hear the matter had still not been resolved.
He told the panel: "What I said, quite clearly, was that I wanted a meeting to get advice.
"The reason to involve the police because we had had so much abuse.
"I sent the email to try and bring this to a conclusion."
But the panel was satisfied that Cllr Buchanan assumed the senior planning officer was responsible the length of time the application was taking.
It was also satisfied that he was also suggesting the officer be suspended as a result, noting that the senior planning officer had been removed from the list of recipients in the email chain.
The members of the panel accepted fully that Cllr Buchanan was entitled to raise questions about the progress of applications determined by the Committee and to raise concerns - with the appropriate line manager or senior officer - about delays potentially caused by a council employee.
But they considered that anyone reading the email would conclude "from Cllr Buchanan's mention of a disciplinary measure, the police, his solicitor, and his use of the word 'scandalous', that he was clearly implying the senior planning officer was guilty of misconduct and or had deliberately done something that was improper or illegal.
Cllr Buchanan said he was very angry that the email, marked private and confidential, had been shared with the officer.
But members of the panel felt that "Cllr Buchanan should have known it was likely the contents of his email would be disclosed ... given the reference to disciplinary proceedings and seriousness of the inferred allegations about the officer's conduct (even if the full email was not shared)".
The Panel agreed that it would be reasonable for the senior planning officer to have interpreted Cllr Buchanan's comments as a threat to contact both the police and an external solicitor about his conduct.
Ms Ferguson said that unless there was a suggestion of illegality, an officer's conduct would be an internal council matter and Cllr Buchanan had not provided any evidence of illegality or misconduct.
The panel found that Cllr Buchanan "had breached the provisions in the Code that require councillors to behave respectfully towards council officers and to refrain from any conduct that could amount to bullying".
The panel agreed that Cllr Buchanan "should have known how to undertake his scrutiny role in respect of the application and overall process and could have asked relevant senior officers to establish whether and, if so why, any undue delays had occurred, without breaching the Code".
Ms Ferguson added that they were concerned that Cllr Buchanan had not shown any remorse or insight into how his conduct may have affected others.
But they noted that the conduct was limited to one email exchange and felt that a three-month suspension was an appropriate sanction.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
10 hours ago
- The National
Checks on arms firms appear to be just a cosmetic formality
THE Scottish Government has come under criticism in recent months for the continuing financial support it provides to companies involved in the arms trade, some of whom continue to supply Israel with military equipment, even as it publicly condemns the Israeli government for the genocide unfolding in Gaza. The Scottish Government insists that no public money is spent on the manufacture of munitions and that all companies which the Scottish Government supports via grants from Scottish Enterprise are subject to a human rights due diligence check. However, no company has ever failed one of these checks, calling into question whether the checks are anything more than a cosmetic formality without any real-world consequences. It now transpires that some companies with an important role in supplying military equipment to Israel have not been subject to a due diligence check in more than six years. A Freedom of Information request has revealed that two major arms companies in receipt of Scottish Enterprise grants – Italian arms giant Leonardo and American multinational Raytheon Systems – have not received a human right due diligence check since October 2019. Both firms have been in receipt of Scottish public money – Leonardo received £786,125 in 2023 while Raytheon Systems, which has a factory in Glenrothes, was given £500k in the first half of 2024. Leonardo produces laser targeting systems for Lockheed Martin, which sells the F-35 jets used by Israel, and Raytheon makes Paveway II guided missiles which are also used by Israel. Both these firms were given public money after the brutal reality of Israel's so-called 'right to defend itself' had become apparent and the genocidal nature of Israel's repeated killing of civilians was well established. Both companies have continued to supply Israel with weapons throughout Israel's assault on Gaza which began in October 2023 in the wake of the Hamas attack on southern Israel. Israel's war on Gaza has now gone way beyond anything which could be described as self-defence and the Israeli government's prime minister now speaks openly of its goal to occupy and ethnically cleanse the territory. The civilian infrastructure of Gaza has now been destroyed and the traumatised and starved population are being herded into small overcrowded and insanitary tent encampments in what it pleases Israel to call "humanitarian zones" from which they will not be permitted to leave except into permanent exile in as yet unknown third countries. Israel claims that the Palestinians will be encouraged to leave "voluntarily" but when you incentivise people to leave by starving them, destroying their homes and all medical educational and sewage disposal infrastructure, shooting people dead as a routine method of crowd control at the pathetically inadequate aid distribution points which are the sole source of food and water for people who have already been displaced multiple times, there is nothing voluntary about it. In response to the revelations uncovered by the Freedom of Information Request, human rights charity Amnesty International told The National that the 'more we learn' about the checks 'the more concerning it becomes' that Scottish Enterprise and Scottish ministers are defending the process. A spokesperson for the organisation said: "Amnesty is aware from our own research that payments were made to companies known to supply Israel without a new check being triggered by the unfolding genocide in Gaza. 'Alarmingly, that is the process Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government attempted to characterise as robust and well aligned to international standards. The recent in-house review of the human rights checks recommended some improvements, but unsurprisingly they don't go far enough. We will be meeting with Scottish Enterprise in the coming weeks to take these concerns forward." Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater condemned the lack of effective checks, saying it 'flies in the face of any kind of due diligence'. She added: "These are some of the biggest arms companies in the world. They have armed human rights abusers and dictatorships and some have directly enabled and profited from the genocide in Gaza. "They should not be receiving public money in the first place, and the Scottish Government absolutely should not be setting up tests to win favourable headlines while refusing to actually implement them. "How can we trust a word they say on ensuring they are applying human rights standards when they are refusing to even ask the right questions of those they are giving public money to?" Serious nuclear incident on Scottish base Following reports last week that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had attempted to cover up decades long leaks of water contaminated with radioactive waste and that the leaks had continued despite claims in 2020 by the MoD that it was taking steps to remedy the situation, we now learn that even more serious safety breaches occurred this year. A serious nuclear incident took place at the Faslane naval base earlier this year. Nuclear Site Event Reports (NSERs) are graded on a scale from Category A through D with A being the most serious category, defined as being one which carries an "actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment". Figures released show there was a Category A event at Faslane in the period between January 1 and April 22 this year. The MoD has refused to release further details about the event, all the MoD is willing to release is radioactive waste into the Scottish environment. As a result of this refusal we do not know whether there was a radioactive release into the environment or only the high risk of one having happened. Putting the minds of the Scottish public at ease has never been a concern for the MoD. Another category A incident also took place in Faslane in 2023. In total there were five Category B, 29 Category C and 71 Category D incidents at Faslane between April 22, 2024 and the same date this year. The MoD has been responsible for repeated leaks of radioactive material into the Clyde. These leaks have been going on for decades and the MoD repeatedly attempts to cover up its culture of negligence. The leaks which have been made public are merely those which the MoD has been forced to admit to. We can only speculate about what the MoD is continuing to cover up.
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
Sturgeon tells of fresh abuse in ‘toxic' trans rights debate
Nicola Sturgeon has spoken out about the abuse she has suffered in recent days as a result of the 'toxic' debate on trans rights. While the former Scottish first minister said she does not 'spend a lot of time looking at the bowels of social media', she is aware some people online have 'laughed' about her miscarriage, and said they want her to be 'raped in a toilet'. She spoke about the miscarriage she had in 2010 as part of events and interviews in recent days to publicise her memoir, Frankly. She says in the book that she 'should have hit the pause button' on controversial legislation to allow trans people to self-identify and gain legal recognition in their preferred gender without a lengthy medical process. Despite fierce opposition from some women's rights campaigners who feared this would give biological males access to female spaces, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood – though it has never been enacted after being blocked by Westminster. Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Thursday, Ms Sturgeon said the debate was 'toxic on both sides'. Highlighting comments made on social media this week, she said: 'There are people who call themselves feminists, standing up for women's rights, saying things about me such as when I described my miscarriage experience the other day 'I haven't laughed as much in years', accusing me of making it up, people saying they hope I am raped in a toilet.' She accepted that 'in all of the tone and tenor of this I am not saying I was blameless at all', saying she 'desperately' wished she had been able to 'find a more collegiate way forward' on the controversial issue. She described transphobia as 'the soft underbelly of other prejudice'. Ms Sturgeon insisted not all opponents of gender reform are either transphobic or homophobic, but the issue of trans rights 'has been hijacked and weaponised by people that are transphobic and homophobic'. She said she was 'worried' that if she paused the gender reforms at Holyrood, this would have seen her 'give in to that'. However she said: 'I might have been wrong, and I probably was wrong about that.' Ms Sturgeon also made clear her support for transgender rights, saying: 'To my dying day… I will just never accept that there is an irreconcilable tension between women's rights and trans rights. 'I don't believe you have to choose between being a feminist and standing up for one of the most stigmatised minorities in our society. 'Who has threatened women for all the years I have been alive – abusive men have threatened women. 'You get bad people in every group in society but you don't tar the whole group with the bad people, and that I really regret appears to be what some are trying to do with trans people, to take some people and say that is representative of the whole trans community. 'My life might be easier if I just gave in on this issue and said 'yeah, I got it wrong' and we should never try to make life better for the trans community. 'But I will never, to make my own life easier, betray a stigmatized minority, because that is not why I came into politics and it is never what I will do in politics.'
Daily Record
18 hours ago
- Daily Record
Claim that South Ayrshire councillor made 'deal' to get role didn't breach rules
Standards Commission accepts that Labour Councillor Philip Saxton made comment about a political deal. A South Ayrshire councillor who was accused of suggesting that a colleague had accepted a bribe to secure a coveted council position did not breach the councillors' code of conduct. Labour councillor Philip Saxton was ousted as chair of the Service and Partnerships Performance Panel in December 2024, with the Conservative-led administration voting to replace him with Alba councillor Chris Cullen. Councillor Saxton commented at the meeting of the council that 'I would, however, advise Cllr Cullen the deal you have reached to get the position comes at a price.' Since then Councillor Cullen has been promoted to the cabinet while Councillor Saxton has returned to his role as chair. Cllr Cullen complained to the Ethical Standards Commissioner (ESC) in March this year, alleging the remark implied he had accepted a bribe or engaged in other unethical behaviour to secure the role. Cllr Saxton denied the allegation, saying his words referred to a political arrangement rather than anything improper. A Standards Commission report stated: 'The complaint concerned an allegation that, at a Council meeting in December 2024, the respondent was disrespectful towards the complainer (another elected member). It stated that Councillor Cullen believed that Cllr Saxton had suggested he had accepted a bribe or had taken some other unethical or inappropriate action in order to obtain the position. However, Cllr Saxton told the ESC that the 'deal' to which he had referred was one of a political nature, and that the reference to 'price' was to the political price of making such a deal. The ESC backed his claim, saying it was supported by other comments he had made during the meeting. The report said: 'He had concluded, therefore, that it was evident the respondent was simply referring to a political deal between the complainer and a political group. 'The ESC noted such a deal was legitimate and not unusual in politics. As such, any criticisms levelled by the respondent for accepting such a deal would not amount to disrespect under the code.' The case was referred to the Standards Commission for Scotland in July, but after reviewing the findings, the Commission decided it was neither proportionate nor in the public interest to hold a hearing. It agreed with the ESC that Cllr Saxton's conduct did not breach the Code and formally took no further action. Cllr Cullen has maintained that Cllr Saxton's comments were 'unacceptable' and warned about the impact the ruling could have. He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: 'I am deeply disappointed that the Standards Commission has chosen to take no further action in this matter. 'What we have here is a clear example of unacceptable behaviour in a public meeting – the kind of insinuations and character assassination that drive decent people away from politics altogether. 'When an elected representative can imply, in front of colleagues, the public, and the press, that another councillor has acted unethically or corruptly, without consequence, it sends a grim message about the standards we're willing to tolerate. 'Public life should be built on respect, integrity, and truth. If we allow underhand comments, veiled accusations, and personal smears to pass unchecked, we normalise a culture where winning political points matters more than honesty and decency. 'It's no wonder so many good people refuse to put themselves forward for public office when they see that this kind of conduct is swept aside as 'politics as usual'. 'If we want healthier debate, more diverse voices, and higher public trust, we have to draw a firm line against personal attacks and deliberate attempts to undermine colleagues' reputations. 'I will continue to speak out against such behaviour, because the public and our democracy deserve better.' However, Cllr Saxton said that the matter should never have been brought to the commission. He said: 'I think councillors should consider seriously before putting complaints to the Standards Commission about petty personal quotes from other members. 'It takes up precious time and costs. 'In this particular case I think Cllr Cullen complained in principle as he was not happy with the suggestion that a deal with the Conservative administration for a particular post with a good additional salary was free from any deal is naive in all senses of the word.'
