Sutherland councillor suspended from office over conduct

A SUTHERLAND councillor has been suspended from office for two months after behaving “disrespectfully” towards the chairman and committee of a local community group.

Michael Baird, a Lib Dem councillor for the North, West and Central Sutherland ward, was found to have “effectively threatened to use his position” as a councillor with regard to ward funding in a bid to pressure the Culrain Hall committee into backing the sale of land near Carbisdale Castle owned by Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS).

Cllr Baird appeared at a hearing of the Standards Commission for Scotland held at Highland Council’s headquarters in Inverness today, where the potential buyer of the land was referred to as “a constituent”.

Cllr Baird did not speak during proceedings and neither did the complainer, Lester Standen, a member of the hall committee.

The hall committee chairman, Graham Charge, however, did give evidence.

The Standards Commission panel heard that FLS had contacted the hall committee in 2023 to ask if it would “facilitate” community discussion round the possible land sale, but that Cllr Baird sent Mr Charge an email in September that year stating that, if the committee did not support the purchase, he could not support “further money” for improvements to the village hall.

The panel also heard that Cllr Baird previously made several unannounced visits to Mr Charge’s home and called him on numerous occasions to discuss the land purchase request.

Mr Charge said in evidence: “I can’t specifically recall what, on each of those occasions, we talked about, but what I can recall with regard to many of these visits is that the reason for the visit was to try to get me to openly support the land purchase because it was felt that the community would follow my lead.”

The panel also heard from Ian Bruce, the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who receives and investigates complaints against councillors before referring them to the Standards Commission for adjudication.

He argued that Cllr Baird engaged in a course of conduct that amounted to bullying and harassment.

He also raised specific concerns about emails and texts Cllr Baird sent to Mr Charge after he had been informed that a complaint had been made against him and was under investigation. This, he said, was despite Cllr Baird having been told that he should not contact the complainer or potential witnesses while this investigation was ongoing.

Ultimately the panel did not consider Cllr Baird’s conduct in regard to these actions amounted to a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct, which all local councillors are required to follow.

They did find, however, that he had breached paragraph 3.1 of that code, which states that: “I will treat everyone with courtesy and respect. This includes in person, in writing, at meetings, when I am online and when I am using social media.”

Morag Ferguson, Standards Commission member and chairwoman of the hearing panel, said: “The panel found that Cllr Baird, as a ward councillor, effectively threatened to use his position and influence over the expenditure of ward funds to pressure the chair and committee into making a decision on a wholly unrelated matter.

“The panel considered that the making of such a threat in the circumstances was disrespectful towards the chair and committee.”

The panel noted that the hall committee was entitled to seek grant funding from Highland Council’s discretionary ward budgets and that, as a ward councillor, Cllr Baird was entitled to advise council officers of his views on how that budget should be spent - “albeit he was not the decision-maker on how any funds should be distributed”.

The panel also heard that Cllr Baird backed the sale because he felt that it would bring new jobs to the area.

The panel added in their summary of findings: “The panel considered it was evident from a reference in the email to the constituent ‘also’ being willing to provide sponsorship, that Cllr Baird was referring to any potential source of funding, including from the council.

“The panel noted that while Cllr Baird would not have had any control over the constituent’s expenditure, he enjoyed some degree of influence in terms of how the ward budget should be spent.

“As such, the panel was of the view that even if it had been Cllr Baird’s intention to refer only to funding from the constituent, it would be reasonable for the chair to have understood that he was also referring to potential future council funding.

“The panel concluded, therefore, that Cllr Baird, as a ward councillor, effectively threatened to use his position and influence over the expenditure of ward funds to pressure the chair and committee into making a decision on a wholly unrelated matter.

“The panel considered it would have been reasonable for the chair to have understood the email to constitute a viable threat. This was because it was evident, from Cllr Baird’s actions in making several visits and numerous telephone calls to the chair, that he felt very strongly about the committee’s stance towards the potential land purchase.”

They added: “The panel was pleased to note that Cllr Baird accepted he had breached the code and had apologised for doing so.

“The panel was of the view, nevertheless, that the public has the right to expect that councillors will make decisions about whether to support funding decisions based on merit (rather than on any unrelated matter, regardless of whether the unrelated matter may be beneficial to the community).

“The panel was concerned that Cllr Baird’s conduct had the potential to erode the public’s trust in this regard.

“It was concerned that, in this case, public trust was adversely affected. The panel further considered it was evident that Cllr Baird’s conduct impacted negatively the chair and the committee’s effectiveness in attempting to facilitate a consultation exercise.

“In the circumstances, the panel concluded, on balance, that a two-month suspension was the appropriate sanction.”

Mrs Ferguson added: “The Code of Conduct does not prevent councillors from assisting constituents. The panel considered, however, that Cllr Baird could done so without issuing any threat concerning council funding.”

A full written decision of the hearing will be issued and published on the Standards Commission’s website within 10 days.

Speaking to the Northern Times after the ruling Mr Standen said he was “really disappointed with the whole system” though he had no regrets about raising the complaint.

“I think of the amount of time and effort that has gone into this and this sanction is not much more than making a child stand in the corner if they misbehave in school,” he said.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.