Criticism of the chairperson of the Education Committee in Laholm Municipality for acting in contravention of the requirement for objectivity in Section 9 of Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government

Summary of the decision: A person emailed the chairperson of an education committee regarding certain school matters from their work email address at an estate agent. In response, the chairperson telephoned the person’s manager. During the subsequent telephone conversation, the chairperson conveyed their opinions on the person’s use of their work email account.

According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is not the place of a representative of a public authority to express opinions on which email address a member of the public uses to communicate. Moreover, and more seriously, there is no reason for a representative of a public authority to contact an individual’s employer in a situation such as the one in question. This is especially true when the purpose is to induce the employer to take measures against the individual. The manner in which the chairperson dealt with the situation is clearly a departure from the requirement for objectivity in the Instrument of Government (SFS 1974:152). As such, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is highly critical of the chairperson’s actions.

Information has also emerged during the investigation that the chairperson questioned why the person had requested access to certain documents. While it has not been possible to substantiate this information, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that it is a very serious matter indeed if there is even a risk that it might be perceived that a representative of a public authority sought to restrict the individual’s constitutional right to access official documents.