The silencing of two Highland councillors could leave the authority’s system of decision-making in chaos, according to political observers.
The two men have been advised by the local authority’s assistant chief executive and a council lawyer not to play a part in planning debate on windfarms because of their public opposition to the technology.
Inverness South councillor Jim Crawford has agreed reluctantly to leave the chamber when those planning applications are considered by the area committee of which he is a member.
City colleague David Henderson has had similar advice and is continuing to discuss his position with officials.
The council’s legal advice suggests the step is a necessary last resort.
Critics have questioned the democracy of paid councillors opting out of important debates to avoid the repercussion of spurned developers seeking legal redress.
Observers, including several councillors, say there is a disturbing inconsistency in effectively barring some members from debate while allowing others with pre- determined opinions to continue to speak freely.
Professor Trevor Salmon, a political analyst at Aberdeen University, said yesterday: “This notion of gagging councillors seems to be more and more common. We seem to be putting straitjackets on legitimate subjects of public debate and that profoundly worries me.”
Mr Crawford, of the Independent Members Group, makes no secret of his dislike of windfarms.
Assistant chief executive Michelle Morris and head of legal services Leslie Johnstone advised him his participation in windfarm debates risked a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct.
Mr Crawford said: “I told them I would not go into the chamber and speak on windfarms, but I will certainly do so elsewhere.
“I told Michelle that when I applied for my job I had to go to 7,500 people and if I’d said I had an open mind on everything I wouldn’t be sitting here today.”
He argued that many committee members had fixed views on other issues, but had not received the same warning.
Mr Henderson said: “Some parties have general positions on things, for example a stance against nuclear power. Does it mean anything before planning related to nuclear power means their members have a prejudiced position?”
The council bases its advice on the councillors’ code of conduct which, it says “includes detailed requirements in respect of quasi-judicial decision making – i.e. planning and licensing”.
In a statement, the council said: “While officers can advise members on the requirements and interpretation of the code, it is a matter for members what declarations they choose to make at committees and how they deal with potential conflicts of interest.”
It added that the Standards Commission for Scotland had the power to bring sanctions against members found to be in breach of the code and that the council was “therefore acting within the terms of the Ethical Framework Act which includes the code”.
North Tory MSP Mary Scanlon said: “It is wholly undemocratic for elected members to be silenced.
“This is what happened under communism. It is not appropriate for open, transparent and accountable governments and councils.”
Roddy Balfour, an IMG member and a former lawyer, acknowledged the officials’ concerns, but said he found the effective silencing of colleagues “disturbing”.