Investigation clears councilof ‘impropriety’

The independent probe also deemed, however, that a “lack of clarity” on the local authority’s part led investigators to understand why complainant Bertie Shaw might raise questions and concerns.

In July last year, a charge against Mr Shaw of assaulting council chief executive Geraldine McGahey in June, 2011 was dismissed at magistrate’s court. Soon after, the chairman of The Cliff management board at Seacourt wrote to the then mayor, Cllr Maureen Morrow, alleging the council had been involved “through the actions of its chief executive” in a “vindictive and subversive campaign” against him.

At the same time he enquired what actions the council would be taking to investigate the chief executive’s role in raising what he described as “a malicious complaint” (the assault allegation). The investigators deemed that this aspect of Mr Shaw’s complaint was “outside the remit” of the probe.

In a separate letter to Cllr Martin Wilson, who then chaired the council’s audit committee, Mr Shaw asked if the council had been charged for the use of its solicitor during a meeting between Mrs McGahey and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).

The Larne Times has seen a copy of the independent investigation report by Charis Consultancy, which refers to “a poor working relationship” between Mrs McGahey and Mr Shaw. The council and The Cliff have been at loggerheads over ownership of Seacourt community centre.

The report indicates that on November 28, 2011 Mrs McGahey attended a meeting with the PPS in relation to the charge of alleged assault and that Stephen Orr, the council’s legal representative from JW McNinch and Son, was also present. In court, Mrs McGahey stated that Mr Orr had attended in a personal capacity as a friend and to give support.

The investigators accepted Mrs McGahey’s explanation, “because Mr Orr himself confirmed he took no active part in the meeting and was not there to offer legal advice”. The report added that it was recognised how Mrs McGahey’s choice of words “could give rise to a reasonable challenge on the part of Mr Shaw.”

Mr Orr had confirmed that “he has never charged for the legal services he provided to Mrs McGahey relating to the alleged assault and was never directed by Council to close his file on the matter”. He had also confirmed that his attendance at the PPS meeting was to be included in a future invoice.

The investigator’s report, dated June, 2014, noted that Mr Orr provided legal services late in 2011 and early 2012, adding: “It strikes the investigators as unusual that the council would not have sought detailed invoices for legal services on this matter before now and on a more regular basis.”

The report indicates there was ”an extensive period of a five-month delay” in interviewing Mrs McGahey due to non-confirmation and/or non-availability on proposed dates to meet; other pressing priorities including chief executive recruitment interviews ahead of the formation of super-councils; and “enabling the fulfilment of her right of accompaniment at such a meeting by an appropriate person”.

Referring to “limitations” within the investigation process, the authors noted some evidence of responses which could be interpreted as sounding “rehearsed”, along with inconsistencies and “limited documentary evidence” submitted by the complainant, respondent and others.

The investigators stated that a lack of factual, objective, consistent and reliable documentary and oral evidence was “in itself evidence”. They proceeded to find that: “There is insufficient evidence to support Mr Shaw’s allegations of financial impropriety. Indeed the investigators had no sense that such impropriety had taken place.” They added: “There is a lack of clarity, however, around certain issues which led the investigators to understand why Mr Shaw might raise questions and concerns about the rigor of the applied process.”

It was accepted that the council had to discuss certain matters “in camera”, but the investigators said this “significantly limited“ the written record of how the matter was progressed” and Mr Shaw’s concern was again understandable in that there were no references to the matter in minutes of council from June, 2011 until November of that year.

The consultants recommended that, in order to safeguard against any future allegations of impropriety against the council its audit committee should consider its role in challenging budgetary spend, as well as in monitoring complaints.

We understand that the council, in camera, has accepted the recommendations contained in the independent report.