Aberdeen councillor suspended for 'serious' comments towards Lord Provost

Aberdeen councillor Jennifer Stewart has been suspended for four months after she was found to have made “serious” comments towards the Lord Provost.

A complaint regarding the independent member’s behaviour at multiple council meetings had been lodged by colleague David Cameron back in October 2023.

The Standards Commission for Scotland held a hearing at the Town House on Tuesday to consider if she has breached the councillors code of conduct.

The first issue focused on whether the Hazlehead member had been disrespectful towards, discriminated against and bullied the Lord Provost at council meetings in December 2022 and again in March, April, September and October 2023.

The second issue was to consider if she had been disrespectful towards Mr Cameron in a press article published in October 2023.

In it, Mrs Stewart had said that the Lord Provost delayed on intervening at the meeting due to his age, he had delayed in allowing her to speak, he was misogynistic and had been sexist towards her.

The ethical standard’s commissioner looked into the matter by watching around 24 hours of webcast footage and reading transcriptions of the meetings.

Mr Cameron had made nine issues of complaint, but six were found not to have breached the code.

However, the remaining three were up for debate by the standards commission panel.

Ethics commissioner believed Mrs Stewart had breached paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.11a of the councillor’s code of conduct.

Representative for the ethical standards commissioner, Angela Glen, explained the reason for the decision.

She stated that the webcast showed Mrs Stewart to be “continuously speaking over the complainer, accusing him of disrespectful conduct, misogynistic or sexist conduct, sexual harassment and religious discrimination”.

Ms Glen also noted the news article showed both parties were approached after the meeting for a quote, but that Mrs Stewart “doubled down” on much of what she had said during the meeting.

The commissioner believed that if Mrs Stewart didn’t think Mr Cameron’s behaviour had improved, she should have taken action privately away from the council chamber.

However, due to the comments being made at a public meeting, the commissioner believed Mrs Stewart’s conduct was “disrespectful and discourteous” of Mr Cameron.

During the October 2023 meeting, Mrs Stewart had made comments on Mr Cameron’s age that she seemed to suggest was affecting his ability to run it efficiently.

After the Lord Provost had taken a pause during proceedings, she said: “And perhaps Lord Provost, with the greatest of respect, if it is your age that is making a delay…”

Picking up on this, the ethics commissioner believed that could be seen as age discrimination and believed the remark was “demeaning”.

Ms Glen added: “The complainer is in his 70s.

“It’s widely understood as an accepted and polite social norm, referencing specifically to an individual’s age in a professional public setting is not appropriate and not respectful.

“The statement is not only a reference to his age, but to his inability due to age.

“This suggests that she considers the complainer not able to perform a task such as carrying out his duties as Lord Provost or run a council meeting.”

It was even suggested that Mrs Stewart went on to “mock” the Lord Provost by changing the pitch of her voice and tone to imitate him.

The commissioner stated that these actions showed Mrs Stewart was “not acting with respect” towards Mr Cameron.

It was even suggested that Mrs Stewart’s actions could have been seen as an “attempt to undermine him” and potentially get him removed him from the role.

After watching the webcasts, the commissioner noted that Mr Cameron would often pause if he needed a moment before asking other members to speak.

Therefore, it was ruled that other councillors were subject to the same treatment as Mrs Stewart.

After reviewing all of the meeting footage between December 2022 and October 2023, commission staff didn’t believe any bullying, misogynistic or sexist conduct had occurred by Mr Cameron.

It was later mentioned that staff were made aware of sexist allegations made against Mr Cameron’s previous behaviour in previous years.

That was brushed off, as Mrs Glen said: “They only demonstrate that he was previously investigated a significant period of time ago for allegations relating to female junior employees.

“However, no findings of misconduct on his part were identified.”

Ahead of making her argument, Mrs Stewart said it was “stressful” and she had been preparing for this hearing for a long time.

She said: “I’ve taken the oath and it’s my opinion, valued judgement is that the complainer is a misogynist.

“He has been sexist towards me and he looked at me venomously, which may have been due to his age.

“I stand by my words.”

The councillor also argued that her comments were appropriate, based on the “character and history” of the Lord Provost.

“You have to consider who the complainant is, who the respondent is, and I would say this is a political spat not an ethical problem.

“My comments were political, they were a valued judgement.

“They may have been shocking, exaggerated, they may even have been provocative, shocking and perhaps aggressive.

“They may have been incorrect, but they were made at a time where chaos ensued in the council – In my 18 years I had not seen anything like that before.”

Mrs Stewart finished making her case by saying: “I haven’t committed a crime.

“I have called out this behaviour, I have said that I won’t tolerate it.

“If people like me don’t call it out or are penalised by calling it out, then what hope is there for other women who want to be involved in politics?”

The panel then heard an impact statement on behalf of Mr Cameron, who was not present at the hearing.

It stated that the pressure on him as meeting convener is “magnified” when Mrs Stewart is present.

The statement added: “When the respondent is not there, he feels less intimidated as she creates an unpleasant atmosphere.

“He has never before been described as misogynistic at any point throughout his career, not has he been accused of being old and not up to the job.

Mr Cameron also stated that he believed Mrs Stewart’s behaviour towards him to be “aggressive and unreasonable”.

In response, Mrs Stewart spoke of her community work and “unblemished” public record, and said she was simply “standing up for justice”.

But after a brief break to deliberate, the standards commission panel decided to suspend the Aberdeen councillor for four months.

While they didn’t believe the press article had breached the code, they argued her behaviour did.

They claimed that Mrs Stewart’s comments were disrespectful and damaging to Mr Cameron’s reputation.

Malcolm Bell, Standards Commission member and chair of the Hearing Panel, said:
“The requirements for elected members to treat others with respect and to refrain from any conduct that could amount to bullying or harassment are key requirements of the councillors’ code.

“The panel noted that a failure to comply with the code’s provisions in these regards can adversely affect the rights and reputations of others.

“It also has a detrimental effect on the standards of public debate, which in turn erodes public confidence in politicians and the democratic institutions they represent.”