Highland councillor Michael Baird hit with second suspension in six months over code breach
Highland councillor Michael Baird has been hit with a two-month suspension from attending full council meetings after a Standards Commission for Scotland panel found that he had breached the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
It is the second suspension handed down to the member for North, West and Central Sutherland in the space of just over six months.
RELATED:
Sutherland councillor suspended from office over conduct
Sutherland councillor faces Standards Commission hearing over conduct
Sutherland councillor faces second hearing this year over conduct
In April, Cllr Baird 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).
This week’s ruling, made following an online hearingon Tuesday, concluded that the Lib Dem councillor had failed to declare a non-financial interest during a meeting of the Sutherland County Committee on January 23, 2024.
The discussion centred around a grant application to Highland Council’s Community Regeneration Fund from a community interest company linked to Carbisdale Castle owner Samantha Kane, referred to as “Ms A” during the hearing, who was noted as a friend and client of Cllr Baird.
The commission’s hearing panel determined that, while Cllr Baird did not vote on the application and there was no evidence of benefit to the company or its director, he should have withdrawn from the discussion and decision-making process.
The panel said his connection to Ms Kane, as the sole director of the applicant company, was significant enough that it could reasonably be perceived as influencing his participation.
Suzanne Vestri, Standards Commission convener and chair of the hearing panel, said: “The panel found that Cllr Baird failed to declare a non-financial interest in relation to a grant application by made by a community interest company for funds from the council’s Community Regeneration Fund and, instead, took part in the discussion and decision-making.
“This was despite him having a friendship and a client/legal representative relationship with the company’s sole director, and despite him having written a letter supporting the development of her property, that had been included in the papers submitted in support of the application.”
The panel acknowledged that Cllr Baird did not vote in favour of the application at the meeting.
It further accepted there was no evidence of any benefit to the community interest company or its director from Cllr Baird’s failure to declare an interest.
It nevertheless considered that, having applied the objective test as required by the councillor’s code, Cllr Baird should have reached the view that his connection to the director of the applicant company would reasonably be regarded as being so significant to the application to be considered, as to be likely to affect his potential discussion and decision-making at the meeting.
In support of this conclusion, the panel noted it was evident from the fact that the chair of the committee had questioned, at the meeting, whether Mr Baird should declare an interest, that he, the chair, had such a perception.
The panel further noted that Cllr Baird appeared to have advised during the investigation process that he would have declared an interest “had he been aware before the meeting that the letter was included” in paperwork submitted to support the application.
The panel agreed, therefore, that Cllr Baird should have declared an interest, withdrawn from the meetings and taken no part in the discussion and decision-making on the specific matter in question. The panel found that his failure to do so amounted to a breach of the code.
In reaching its decision on sanction, the hearing panel noted that Cllr Baird had co-operated with the investigative and hearing processes.
The panel also noted his commitment to his constituency and constituents.
The panel agreed, nevertheless, that Cllr Baird should have been aware that the objective test was one of perception and that he should have considered how members of the public might reasonably view his connection to the director of the applicant company and whether this was likely to influence his discussion and decision-making at the meeting.
Panel members agreed this was particularly the case given he was reminded, at the meeting, about the need to declare any interest.
In the circumstances, the panel agreed that it was necessary to impose a suspension in order to reflect the nature of the breach, to promote adherence to the code and to maintain and improve the public’s confidence that councillors will comply with the codes and will be held accountable if they fail to do so.
The panel determined that a suspension of two months was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
Ms Vestri added: “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.