The power balance between officials and democracy is the wrong way round

The case of Fiona Higgins at Glasgow City Council is one that should concern all of Scotland. She is a councillor in Glasgow who identified what she saw as a deliberate cover-up of information about cuts to education in Glasgow, pursued them and found herself stonewalled by council officials.

The council officials saw it differently; they considered her pursuit of this information and the naming of those who were involved to constitute 'bullying' and 'harassment'. They made a complaint and the Ethical Standards Commission upheld it and Cllr Higgins now faces a hearing.

As this is a semi-judicial process that could result in a suspension and since some of the officials involved are themselves embroiled in another issue where legal letters have been flying around (the self-allocated 'golden goodbyes' which were very heavily criticised by the Accounts Commission which they called “deeply concerning”), so care must be taken at this stage.

But this case raised large and fundamental questions about the nature of public life in Scotland, who is responsible to who, who should be held account and why and what does the public deserve to know about all of this?

The fast summary version is that Cllr Higgins found that there were cuts to the education budget in Glasgow but that the notes indicating that this was happening were edited to remove the word 'cuts' and replace them with a euphemism that mean something else completely. In pursuing how this was allowed Cllr Higgins found out that this had been done against the advice of the Director of Education.

Yet she had to pursue this via Freedom of Information requests and her ability to uncover this information as an elected official inside the council was constantly stymied. Again, she believes she was fully justified in pursuing the officials concerned for a full explanation about how this was allowed. The officials did not agree.

At the heart of this is whether a senior unelected official (who earns over £160,000) can be held personally responsible for actions by an elected official (who earns £25,000). This case is a test of the question of whether paid officials are purely bureaucrats enacting will of elected members and so should not be personally responsible.

Yet this seems difficult to stand up in the two cases referenced above. The whole thrust of the Accounts Commission's damning review of the golden goodbyes was that the officials created a policy which benefitted themselves and they did it with no knowledge or sign-off from elected officials. They were clearly not enacting public policy as developed by a democratically elected body.

Likewise, the education cuts presentation was information that was being presented to councillors, not by councillors. Do councillors have the right to clear and accurate information from officers? If officers do not provide that information clearly and accurately, are they still operating on the instruction of elected members or on their own behalf?

This fundamental question of the imbalance of power lies at the heart of any debate over modern Scotland. In the case of the golden goodbyes, while the actions of officials were eviscerated by the Accounts Commission, no action was taken against any individual concerned.

And yet there was legal proceedings – the council officials issued a legal letter to councillors warning them that they could be legally liable if they talk about the case. This is surely a remarkable situation – officials are caught signing off payments to themselves that only they knew about and approved but it is the elected officials (who are innocent in this case) who are warned to remain silent.

There is a strong sense that the system of accountability has been created by the officials themselves and that it has been shaped in a way that protects them and punishes their critics. This is a pattern so familiar to most Scots now that it raises a weary groan – 'lessons will be learned but everyone will be allowed to get away with everything'.

It now turns out that not everyone may actually be able to get away with everything. It turns out that the one party who may be disciplined is a democratically elected politician seeking to uncover the truth of the actions of officials and who may be suspended as a result.

Once this plays out it should act as a stimulus for a very major review of the relationship between officials and democracy. At the moment in Scotland, it feels very much the wrong way round.