Moray Council handed complaints by Hopeman and Burghead surgery campaigners
Health campaigners have submitted two official complaints about a councillor after an investigation cleared her of rule-breaking.
Members of the Save Our Surgeries group said they were “absolutely horrified” by the verdict of a Standards Commission investigation into Councillor Tracy Colyer (Keith and Cullen, Conservative).
Last September, a conversation between the councillor and a clerk was accidentally broadcast after a Moray Integration Joint Board (MIJB) meeting.
Cllr Colyer, who had been chairing the meeting, said SOS members should “get a life” and compared the loss of Burghead and Hopeman branch surgeries to the end of doorstep milk deliveries.
The councillor apologised “unreservedly” after the comments were queried, she resigned from the MIJB and the board of NHS Grampian, and she submitted herself for investigation to the Ethical Standards Commissioner.
She also resigned from the administration group, pending the outcome of the investigation, which she has now rejoined.
However, the Standards Commission ruling found that no breach of the rules had taken place, because the MIJB had no rule about treating “members of the public with respect”.
The MIJB subsequently agreed a new code of conduct, which introduced a requirement for councillors to respect the public.
In its report, the watchdog confirmed it would not carry out further investigations or hold a hearing over the webcast remark.
However, SOS member Rhona Grant confirmed that the group had delivered two complaints to Moray Council’s legal department earlier this week.
She said: “We backed off because she had asked for privacy during the investigation.
“But we are absolutely horrified about the results of the Standards Commission investigation.
“So we are putting in a complaint about it.”
When details of the complaints were put to Moray Council and Health and Social Care Moray, both confirmed that they would not comment on individual complaints.
Of the two complaints handed in, one was on behalf of the entire SOS group and the other submitted by member Syanness Tunggal.
The group complaint argued that, during her conversation with the clerk, Cllr Colyer revealed she had “no intention of allowing any questions” about the group during the earlier meeting.
It claimed the councillor had tried to “suppress any discussion” about the campaign group in pre-meetings.
Campaigners also argued that Cllr Colyer had portrayed their group as “stuck in the past and not willing to accept change”, which was a “total disrespect to the wider members of our communities” that backed the campaign.
It also described the councillor’s comparison between the closure of Hopeman and Burghead branch surgeries and the end of doorstep milk deliveries as “disparaging”.
The complaint also criticised the MIJB’s wider stance about the closure of Hopeman and Burghead surgeries, accusing the board of a “failure to carry out its core responsibilities”.
A consultation into the closures had sparked “overwhelming” opposition, the letter adds.
It also described the approach of the MIJB as “astonishingly prejudiced” against SOS.
The letter makes three requests.
First, it calls for an investigation into an alleged “conspiracy to undermine and suppress discussion of issues linked to SOS campaign”.
It also asks for an external body to carry out “a fair and transparent review” into the situation.
Finally, it also argued that Moray Council and MIJB governance structures should be improved.
The other complaint filed with Moray Council centred on group member Syanness Tunggal.
In April 2024, Ms Tunggal attended an unsuccessful interview for a role as a stakeholder representative volunteer member of the MIJB.
Cllr Colyer, during the accidentally-broadcast conversation, accused the woman of "asking leading questions" while "fumbling underneath the desk".
The councillor said she then asked: "What are you doing with your phone?"
She added: "That is the calibre of the people we are trying to work with."
Ms Tunggal, who has a Masters in public health, has previously worked for the Swiss Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières Belgium.
Her letter argued that she tried to record the conversation only after the first interview question caused her to expect an “offensive” interview.
“To my astonishment, the question referred to my statement made the day before during an interview broadcast by STV who covered the SOS campaign,” the letter said.
“I realised then that I was in to face an offensive interview because of my link with the SOS Campaign.
“The chair spotted my move and asked what I was doing.
“I made it absolutely clear that I wanted to record the interview process, for which I was told that I was not allowed.”
Ms Tunggal also stated that she asked the panel if they wanted her to leave the interview, added: “I did not see the point of wasting everybody’s time.”
However, the panel “did not accept my offer”, the letter added.
In her conversation with the clerk, Cllr Colyer also confirmed she had spoken to Alasdair McEachan, head of legal and democratic services at Moray Council, who said Ms Tunggal should have been removed.
However, the complaint letter described this statement as “alarmingly deceptive” and argued it implied that Ms Tunggal had not offered to leave after the incident.
In her comments, Cllr Colyer also said that interview questions had been the same for all participants.
However, in her complaint, Ms Tunggal expressed doubts over whether this was true.
The complaint said: “Was there really a reference made to the SOS campaign the previous night on STV asked to other interviewees?”
Ms Tunggal argued that the interview panel had used “attack and intimidation” tactics during the interview, in sharp contrast to practices she had seen during her own career.
The complaint argued that the panel had shown a “clear prejudice against myself as a candidate for the voluntary board member as exposed by the Chair in implying my character as difficult to deal with as shown by the video webcast”.
Confidentiality requirements had also been breached, the letter claimed, and officers and councillors should have declared an interest over previous interactions with the SOS group.
The letter made three requests.
First, it asked for an investigation into the conduct of the recruitment panel with results used to make councillors more accountable.
The letter was also intended, she said: “To clear my name from any attempt to defame my character and characters of those involved in the SOS campaign.”
Finally, the complaint asks for a review of recruitment policies to “ensure transparency, accountability and professionalism”.
