Councillor gets formal reprimand over leaked emails to Facebook page

An East Ayrshire councillor pleaded ignorance about the Councillors’ Code of Conduct after sending confidential emails via his personal account and sharing them with a contributor to a Facebook page.

The Standards Commission for Scotland found Conservative Councillor James Adams breached four sections of the Code over the disclosure of an unredacted chain of internal emails concerning risks posed by combustible waste days before the Victoria Buildings in Kilmarnock’s King Street were destroyed by fire.

The emails, which were passed on to one of the people behind the ‘East Ayrshire Cooncil’ facebook page, contained details of council officers and included discussions about the council’s legal obligations, service delivery and enforcement, as well as reference to legal advice.

Councillor Adams accepted sending the correspondence but claimed he had not understood that the information, other than the personal details it contained, should be treated as confidential.

He said he shared the emails while abroad after becoming angry at online criticism suggesting councillors had failed to act. He denied that he had complained about officers, despite the emails sparking a barrage of public criticism of the council.

But the Standards Commission panel said the emails were ‘inherently confidential’ and concluded Cllr Adams disclosed it ‘at least in part, for personal or political advantage’ as he sought to rebut criticism of his own record.

They said that the breach was ‘serious in nature’ and expressed concern that Cllr Adams had shown ‘only limited insight’ into the importance of following the Code and council policies.

The panel added that while newly elected councillors were given a large amount of information which could be overwhelming, Cllr Adams had been in office for more than four years and had not taken steps to ensure he understood his duties.

Cllr Adams, who represents Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse, told the hearing he had been active in raising concerns about combustible waste and fire risks before the blaze, including contacting the council 36 hours beforehand.

He was in Canada when the fire occurred and said he became angry after learning he and other councillors were receiving what he described as ‘a bit of a pounding’ online over alleged inaction.

He said: “I wanted to let them know that actually, far from doing nothing, I had been very active.”

The circumstances in which the email chain moved between his council and personal accounts were closely questioned.

Cllr Adams explained that one reason for using his personal email was down to council IT restrictions that meant he could not copy and paste from emails and could not access Facebook from his council laptop.

He said when the council sent him information it wanted posted on social media, his only means of copying it was to forward it to his personal account.

He told the panel: “It wouldn’t be unusual for me to send an email and copy myself to my personal account.”

Cllr Adams also said he had asked for his council phone to be configured before travelling to Canada and the USA so he could continue dealing with constituents, but was unable to access his council emails abroad.

However, questioning established that the email chain was already accessible from his personal account while he was in Canada.

Panel member Lezley Stewart asked: “So you had the email [chain] in your personal account to be able to be accessed in Canada, which is why you sent it then from your personal email account?”

The hearing did not establish precisely when this particular chain was originally transferred to his personal account or the specific reason for doing so.

It was also revealed Cllr Adams had given another explanation during the Ethical Standards Commissioner’s investigation, saying he routinely forwarded some correspondence because he considered it personal in nature and was uncomfortable with council officers having access to it.

The panel said his reasons did not alter the fact East Ayrshire Council policy clearly identified forwarding council emails to personal accounts as unacceptable use of its communications systems.

It said Cllr Adams had a responsibility, ‘as he would in any other job’, to familiarise himself with the policy.

His evidence about social media also came under scrutiny.

While explaining his use of personal email, Cllr Adams said he regularly received council emails asking him to put information on social media and forwarding them allowed him to copy and paste the material.

But later, when it was suggested he could have publicly defended himself without disclosing the emails, Cllr Adams said: “At that point, I didn’t do social media as a councillor. I’ve only started doing social media as a councillor within the past seven months or so.”

There was also scrutiny of what Cllr Adams understood about email classifications such as ‘public’ and ‘official’.

He recalled being told that ‘public’s for the general public’ and ‘official’s internal’, but said his understanding had been that unless something was classified as ‘official protect’, it was ‘kind of OK’.

The panel acknowledged the classification of some emails in the chain was ‘somewhat unclear’, but found the nature of the correspondence meant Cllr Adams should have understood it was confidential.

He also faced questions about his knowledge of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

He said he had been working full-time when he became a councillor and was unsure whether he had attended some of the training offered following his election in 2022.

He acknowledged he was aware there was a Councillors’ Code of Conduct, but later said the first time he had seen the document was when the former chief executive gave him a copy in connection with the complaint.

He told the panel: “You don’t know what you don’t know.”

Panel chairman Malcolm Bell questioned whether it had nevertheless been Cllr Adams’ responsibility to make himself familiar with the Code.

The panel ultimately found Cllr Adams had breached rules concerning confidential information, and the use of council resources.

However, it rejected allegations that he had breached provisions prohibiting councillors from undermining employees or publicly raising concerns about their performance, conduct or capability.

It accepted his position that he intended to demonstrate he had taken action over the fire risk rather than criticise council officers.

Although officers were subsequently criticised on the Facebook page as a consequence, the panel found Adams himself had not publicly criticised or undermined identifiable employees.

It said Adams could have publicly explained the action he had taken without disclosing confidential information.

The panel took into account that the conduct was limited in duration, Adams had no previous finding of a breach and had cooperated fully with the investigation and hearing.

However, it said maintaining confidentiality was a key requirement of the Code and failures could damage the council’s reputation and impede the discussions and decision-making needed for it to function effectively.

The panel also urged Adams to undertake further training on the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and East Ayrshire Council policies to ensure he fully understood his obligations.