THE Standards in Public Office report into alleged breaches of ethics by Independent Cllr John O’Donnell during the filming of an undercover RTE progrmme, was released today.
Below are the decisions reached by SIPO. The full 253 page report can be viewed at sipo.ie.
5.11 Decision in respect of Alleged Contravention 1
Having regard to the evidence before it, the Commission finds that
Councillor O’Donnell agreed to provide information and assistance, in
dealing with issues such as planning and local opposition, to the fictitious
investment company in return for a financial reward. The Commission is of
the opinion that Councillor O’Donnell made it clear to the undercover
reporter that a financial reward would be required for his involvement in the
proposed windfarm project.
Councillor O’Donnell: “well it cost you nothing at the moment because what
I will do, I am going to take this because I suppose for me my investment, I
put the time into this, would be a small token to pay if we can get
something that maybe we can, if we can get a particular site. Okay. Or a
particular if we can get a landowner to get a developer that has already
acquired land that is all ready to go that is looking for the funds for the
development, well naturally enough then you’ll – then it is going to start
discussing what we can bring to the table and what you can give me back
in return.” (Appendix 3, Transcript pg. 135).
particular if we can get a landowner to get a developer that has already
acquired land that is all ready to go that is looking for the funds for the
development, well naturally enough then you’ll – then it is going to start
discussing what we can bring to the table and what you can give me back
in return.” (Appendix 3, Transcript pg. 135).
5.12 This is further illustrated by Councillor O’Donnell’s reference to payment
arrangements which would be through his solicitor and references to the
negotiation of terms and agreements which would be drawn up after the
initial scoping of the project was complete. The conduct of Councillor
O’Donnell which has been outlined above constitutes a failure “to maintain
proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest”
and thus a contravention of Section 168 of the Local Government Act.
25
5.15 Decision in respect of Alleged Contravention 2
Following careful consideration of the evidence, the Commission is of the
opinion that Councillor O’Donnell contravened the provisions of Section
170 of the Local Government Act as he sought an assurance of payment
during discussions with the undercover reporter as to the assistance he
could provide. This included assistance to identify suitable sites, assistance
with the planning process, assistance in the context of zoning and lobbying
of fellow Council members and the related investment of time. In giving
such assistance, Councillor O’Donnell made it clear that he would expect,
at a certain stage of the project, payment in return. This is demonstrated by
Councillor O’Donnell’s clear instructions to the undercover reporter that
payment would be managed through his solicitor only; “I will get paid
through him” and “Yeah, for my protection he has to be involved” (Appendix
3, Transcript, pg. 81).
27
5.20 Decision in respect of Alleged Contravention 3
For these reasons, the Commission determines that Councillor O’Donnell
failed to have regard to and be guided by the Code of Conduct for
Councillors contrary to section 169(3) of the Local Government Act.
5.21 For convenience, the contraventions alleged against Councillor O’Donnell
are now set out in full, followed by the Commission’s findings and
determinations.
(i) That being a member of a local authority you contravened the provisions
of Section 168 of the Local Government Act, 2001 by failing to maintain
proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest
in that you met with a representative of a fictitious UK investment
company (“the Company”) interested in developing wind farms in County
Donegal, in respect of which the Company was looking for information
and assistance in dealing with issues such as planning permission and
local opposition, and to whom you offered to provide assistance in return
for financial reward.
The Commission is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that Councillor
O’Donnell contravened section 168 of the Local Government Act in the
manner alleged. The Commission is satisfied on the balance of
probabilities that the contravention was committed intentionally and that it
was, in all the circumstances, a serious matter.
(ii) That being a member of a local authority you contravened the provisions
of Section 170 of the Local Government Act, 2001 by seeking
assurances of payment and indicating a willingness to provide
assistance to the Company as a member of the local authority in return
for payment.
The Commission is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that Councillor
O’Donnell contravened section 170 of the Local Government Act in the
manner alleged. The Commission is satisfied on the balance of
probabilities that the contravention was committed intentionally and that it
was, in all the circumstances, a serious matter.
(iii) That being a member of a local authority you contravened the
provisions of Section 169(3) of the Local Government Act, 2001 in that
you failed to have regard to and be guided by the Code of Conduct for
Councillors insofar as you indicated a willingness to provide assistance
with local landowners and with the planning application in the local
authority on behalf of the Company in return for financial reward.
The Commission is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that Councillor
O’Donnell contravened section 169(3) of the Local Government Act in the
manner alleged. The Commission is satisfied on the balance of
probabilities that the contravention was committed intentionally and that it
was, in all the circumstances, a serious matter.
5.22 By their nature, the Commission finds that the contraventions are not
continuing.
28
Good Faith
5.23 Where the Commission has determined that there has been a
contravention, Section 24(2)(c)(iv) of the Ethics Act requires that the
Commission also consider “whether the person acted in good faith and in
the belief that his or her action was in accordance with guidelines published
or advice given in writing by…the Commission under Section 25”.
5.24 As the Commission has found that Councillor O’Donnell has contravened
provisions of the Code of Conduct for Councillors, as set out in Alleged
Contravention 3, the Commission is required to consider whether or not he
acted in good faith. Each year, councillors are required to complete and
return an annual declaration of interests, including the following
declarations:
“I hereby declare that I have received a copy of and read the Code of
Conduct for Councillors and further declare that I understand its meaning,
and I hereby undertake to have regard to and be guided by the Code of
Conduct for Councillors in the exercise of my functions”
5.25 The Commission finds that Councillor O’Donnell did not act in good faith
when he intentionally engaged in conduct in contravention of various
provisions of the Code of Conduct for Councillors.
Receive quality journalism wherever you are, on any device. Keep up to date from the comfort of your own home with a digital subscription.
Any time | Any place | Anywhere
SUBSCRIBE TO CURRENT EDITION TODAY
and get access to our archive editions dating back to 2007(CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO SUBSCRIBE)