Council must pay lawyers £1/4 million over Connor appointment saga

Editorial Department • Published 29 Apr 2010 10:12 3 Comments

See also:

Fermanagh District Council faces a legal bill of around a quarter of a million pounds over a case it was barely directly involved in.

The High Court has ruled that the Council, and hence the ratepayers, must pay the costs of an investigation over the appointment of Rodney Connor as Chief Executive 10 years ago.

Fermanagh District Council now faces a bill believed to be £248,000, with some sources saying it could be up to £300,000.

Current chairman, Robert Irvine said he and other Councillors are "extremely disappointed and frustrated" at the outcome after Mr. Justice Higgins said in his judgement that "all parties acknowledged (Mr Connor) to be a successful appointment."

The background to the case is that in the year 2000, Unionist Councillors of the day voted for Mr. Connor to become Chief Executive. All Nationalists voted for another candidate, Mr. Danny McSorley, except for Independent, Mr. Tony McPhillips who voted for Mr. Connor, ensuring he got the job.

However, Mr. McSorley and another candidate, Mr. Brian McTeggart lodged separate cases over their failure to get the job. The Council took legal opinion, which advised them to pay compensation to Messrs. McSorley and McTeggart rather than face court action. The compensation and legal advice ran to around £38,000.

The Local Government Auditor then decided to go after individual Unionist Councillors for that money, accusing them of wilful misconduct in voting en bloc. There was no action against Nationalist Councillors for bloc voting because, in effect, it did not cost the Council any money.

However, Unionist Councillors appealed and eventually won their case against the Auditor with a court ruling that they were not guilty of wilful misconduct. This protracted case and appeal has run up costs of almost £300,000.

The Impartial Reporter understands that there are three separate bills for legal representatives of the DUP and Ulster Unionist Councillors of £90,000, £75,000 and £27,000. The Local Government Auditor's costs amount to £38,000. It is not known how the original £38,000 fits in.

The only cost the Council itself incurred was £9,000 for a barrister to keep a watching brief throughout the case.

Yet, the High Court has now ruled that the Council must pick up the entire bill.

The irony is that the nine Unionist Councillors involved were cleared on appeal, and although he lost the case the Auditor then asked the Council to pay all costs.

In effect, the Auditor started off trying to recover £38,000 on behalf of the ratepayers, but has ended up costing them a quarter of a million. Yet there is no comeback on him or his office.

In his judgement, Justice Higgins said that the investigation into the process of appointing the new chief executive was entirely justified in the circumstances.

"What was uncovered in this instance fell short of wilfull misconduct but was sufficient to justify settling two fair employment claims. It was at best prima facie discriminatory and certainly unedifying," said the judgement, which ruled that all factors justified the Council having to meet the Auditor's bill.

Ironically, news of the judgement comes weeks after Mr. Connor's retirement as Chief Executive and in the middle of his campaign to be elected as an independent in the forthcoming Westminster General Election. The issue was referred to at Monday evening's public debate in Irvinestown between the candidates (see report page 13).

In a statement, Fermanagh District Council says that their legal advisors have indicated that it would be difficult to appeal this judgement and they will seek a full independent assessment of the legal costs claimed.

The statement by the present chairman, Robert Irvine says it is important that ratepayers understand the role of the Council in all this.

"Fermanagh District Council was not a party to the actiion taken by the Local Government Auditor against some current and former Councillors. The Council was not party to the successful appeal by the Councillors and yet it is the Council, and its ratepayers who will ultimately bear the significant cost of this action," said Mr. Irvine.

"I and my fellow Councillors are extremely disappointed and frustrated at the outcome of this case. Unfortunately, as a result of the judgement, it is Fermanagh District Council and ultimately its ratepayers who will bear the full financial consequences," said Mr. Irvine.

This article appeared in Impartial Reporter 29 Apr 10

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

facta non verba
Unregistered User
Apr 30, 18:26
Report comment

It's probably too much to hope for that in future the vote would be given to the best man for the job - rather than small minded sectarian reasons.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
William Houston
Unregistered User
May 12, 18:31
Report comment

I don't see how 'facta non verba' can claim that Rodney Connor was appointed for 'small minded sectarian reasons, to the post of CEO of Femanagh Council. He enjoyed cross-community support, with Independent Nationalist Mr. McPhillips voting for him, which the two unsuccessful candidates didn't have and he was the previous Deputy Chief Executive, so had an insight and knowledge of the job. Unfortunately, fair employment cases are advised to be settled out of court to reduce costs but this leads to perpetual litigants. Sometimes I wonder, when a person claims s/he has been discriminated in each and every job that they've been unsuccesful in obtaining, whether they were actually discriminated against or do they have a conspiracy mindset that leads to a nice little earner in return for their allegations. It would also been advantagous to know if the two complainants received the financial support of the Fair Employment Commission?

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
kevin
Unregistered User
May 15, 09:35
Report comment

you have hit the nail on the head as regards on eoff the poeple claiming unfair pratices he has doen it many times before i will not however say which one in case he sues me as well for telling the truth

this kind off behavoire does to favours to those genuinaly discriminated gains as they are all tarred with the same brush

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.