“KING-MAKER” councillor Archie Drummond rejected claims he tried to engage in direct operational management at Clackmannanshire Council.

He said he had been an employee in local government in the past and added: “I have done both jobs, I know the difference.”

As the Advertiser reported last month, the independent elected member has been hauled before a Standards Commission for Scotland tribunal, accused of breaching the Councillors' Code of Conduct on three charges.

He is accused of not respecting council employees' roles 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 breached a rule, which says the councillors and employers should work in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.

The alleged breaches are said to have been committed between 2013-2015, when cllr Drummond became involved in representing a constituent from his ward.

  • Housing issues

On Monday, the reconvened tribunal heard how cllr Drummond, who used to be director of housing at East Dunbartonshire Council in the 90s, first became involved in the case when the constituent approached him regarding housing issues, following advice from her solicitor.

Later, the councillor also learned about the woman's issues with Social Works Services – her baby had been separated from her in a “hyper sensitive” case.

It was highlighted that the two issues overlapped.

While it turned out she was on the top of the housing list, it has been claimed by witness Eva Comrie, solicitor of the woman, and the defendant that social works rejected plans to put her into accommodation. This was due to the fact that a Schedule 1 Offender, someone who has been convicted of an offence against a child, lived in the area.

This would have caused issues with the potential rehabilitation of the baby into family.

  • Territory not experienced before

The councillor had received a mandate from the constituent and inquired for all information relating to her cases.

Witness Lisa Simpson, head of legal services at the council, told the panel that the case was complex and said the information requested by the councillor was very detailed and highly sensitive, adding: “I couldn't for the life of me work out why he was seeking this information.”

She said this was “territory not experienced before” for the legal team, which had the case on its desk almost every day.

According to Mrs Comrie, the information made it clear that there was a house for the woman, but it was rejected on social works' suggestion. Her client felt the issue with housing had an impact on her social works case.

Mrs Simpson claimed the councillor had not been happy with how the case progressed, and that his mentality was that everyone who touched the issue was wrong.

She suggested the councillor was perhaps “entrenched” in his views and said that he did indeed concede he may have been and added that he said he would fight every corner for the constituent and he would make no apology for that.

  • King-maker

Mrs Simpson said cllr Drummond, an independent elected member in a minority SNP administration, is a “king-maker” in the chamber, referring to how he was the deciding factor at the election of the provost.

When cross-examined by the defence, she said it made no difference to her, she was just explaining the situation at the council, but the suggestion that the political environment has no impact on officers is “naive”.

  • I am asking questions

It was heard that in an email to Mrs Simpson, cllr Drummond questioned if the council acted ultra vires, beyond it's legal power, and used the word “detention”, when describing that the baby was not with the mother.

The defendant was also called to give evidence. It was highlighted that he had experience as a local government employee in numerous roles and he said he felt like he didn't step over the line and he did not engage in direct operational management of services.

Regarding his “managerial tone” in some of his emails, he explained that he had been a manager in the past, saying he suspects his style may be like that.

However, he said there is a difference between style and giving direct instructions. He said there was no evidence he tried to manage anybody and that he had not issued any instructions.

Speaking of the documentation submitted as evidence, he said: “Pick a page, I am asking questions.” He added he thought he was asking them politely and respectfully, according to his role.

  • Kidnapped

It was previously claimed that he used the word “kidnapped”, when describing the baby being separated from the mother.

He said there was no evidence of that in the documentation and he does not accept it was a phrase he had used.

When asked about the use of the phrase “illegal detention”, he said he did not accuse the council of acting ultra vires, he simply asked whether it was the case.

He also denied he would have said “on your head be it” to Val de Souza and Elaine McPherson.

There is still more evidence to be heard from cllr Drummond, before the panel can adjourn to make a decision. The tribunal is set to continue on April 14.