A CLACKMANNANSHIRE councillor has been hauled before a Standards Commission tribunal accused of breaching the Councillor's Code of Conduct.

Three charges have been brought against independent councillor Archie Drummond, who allegedly contravened the code between 2013-2015 by not respecting council employees and the role they play and not treating them with courtesy at all times.

It has also been alleged that he engaged in direct operational management of the council's services and did not follow the Protocol for Relations between Councillors and Employees by breaching paragraph 2, which says that councillors and employees should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect with neither party seeking to take unfair advantage of their position.

The panel, chaired by Ian Gordon, heard that the alleged breaches were committed while the councillor was representing a constituent, who was a mother involved in a sensitive Social Work Services case and who also had housing needs. Through a Child Protection Order at Alloa Sheriff Court, the baby was separated from the mother.

The case, described as “a thorn in the flesh of the council” by defence representative Niall McCluskey, dates back as far as 2010-11 and the tribunal heard how the service was under much pressure and criticism in the past five years.

Around 300 pages of documentation were submitted as evidence for the hearing, these contained emails between the councillor and various staff.

Mr McCluskey, and his associate Aamer Anwar, argued that much of his communication was cordial and polite, while witnesses, council chief executive Elaine McPherson and head of social services Val de Souza, said they were concerned with his tone and some inappropriate language in some of his emails.

In particular, they were concerned that when describing the situation, the councillor said the local authority “detained” the child and he also used the word “kidnapping” alongside the phrase “mental torture” when describing the situation of the constituent.

The councillor did not use swear words and the defence argued that politicians often use more powerful language than others, saying that the interpretation of his words is a matter of perspective.

Ms de Souza said that some of the communications from the councillor towards officers was written in a managerial tone, raising concerns that he may be engaging in direct operational management of services. Mr McCluskey, however, argued that whatever the councillor told officers had ultimately no effect on their decision-making.

He also said that the councillor was representing the interests of his constituent and did not try to further his own interest. Ms de Souza said that the service had a statutory duty to represent the interest of the child.

The defence argued that the councillor was asking challenging questions, as part of his duty to scrutinise services, and the easiest way to “get him off (their) back” was to report him to the commission.

In 2015 a meeting was set up between the chief executive, Ms de Souza and the councillor to discuss concerns.

Ms de Souza said the councillor's enquiries started to intensify and said she felt the service was being pushed to meet the needs of the parent rather than the child.

She said the councillor's sentiment was that Social Work Services did not know what it was doing and told the panel that at the end of the meeting the councillor made a comment along the lines of “on your head, be it”, which she said felt like a “veiled threat”.

Council leader and convener of the Housing, Health and Care Committee, Les Sharp, also gave evidence and said that he became aware that Mr Drummond was interested in the case when he told him about it over a cup of coffee, but he did not remember details.

When asked by presiding officer Claire Gilmore, he also highlighted that as a convener of the committee, he has never looked into individual cases.

There is still evidence to be heard from a number of witnesses and the hearing is set to continue on March 7.