Heated Sligo County Council debate hears Cathaoirleach’s motion branded ‘rubbish’ by independent councillor

By Philip Rooney, The Sligo Champion

There were heated exchanges during a debate at the March meeting of Sligo County Council when a motion put forward by the Cathaoirleach was referred to by an independent councillor as “rubbish.”

The motion from Councillor Donal Gilroy asked what the policy was regarding publication of submissions made during public periods of consultation and why some are published on the council website and others aren’t

Speaking to his motion, Cllr Gilroy remarked, “I accept that there are two separate processes within the public consultation. I still believe the non-statutory public consultation is still a public consultation, we are not precluded from publishing them and I think what happens if one of you puts in a submission on something you may wish your constituents to know that you have put in a submission on it and for it to be clearly shown what you have said. Maybe others might want to see what you have said as well.

“When these submissions go in people are entitled to have it shown that they are and for people to see them. Perhaps if somebody makes a submission that’s adverse with what your opinion is you might say ‘I need to make a submission to make the opposite argument on it’.

" It’s not a statutory obligation to publish them, I think they can go up almost as an automatic matter of form, they could go up so people can read them and see what other people have said because it is important to be open and transparent about this and if people make a submission that it should be seen.”

When asked by Cllr Joe Queenan for examples of non-statutory public consultations that do not have to be published, Cllr Gilroy said “active travel and traffic calming fall into this category.”

Cllr Marie Casserly asked for clarity regarding the motion with Cllr Gilroy replying, “If you look at the Grange active travel you will see zero submissions but there are submissions. It’s coming up on the website that there are zero submissions but there are submissions. Because it’s non-statutory, they are not divided up on the website to say these ones won’t be shown, these ones will be shown. I think they should all be shown, if it is a public consultation.”

Emer Concannon, Director of Placemaking informed the meeting, “All public consultations which are subject to a council decision that are reserved function which includes development plan, local area plans all of the submissions are legislatively required to be published.

"The non-statutory public consultations, which occur across various sections in the Council, the actual submission is either published or within the manager’s report which is made public, which is on the website and sent to the Council members, all of the issues are dealt with and the list of people that made a submission is published. The list of people is published and all of the issues are dealt with individually in the Chief Executive’s Report.”

Having listened to the reply from Ms Concannon, Cllr Michael Clarke asked, “Can I ask how did this rubbish get on the agenda? Why did this not go to the procedures committee first? Nobody when they read this motion, will have a notion what it was about.”

Cathaoirleach, Cllr Gilroy took exception to those comments saying, “To call someone else’s motion ‘rubbish’ when you are the one that is calling names and doing everything else and misbehaving around the place; you need to read that book about showing a bit of respect.

"It is the second time today that you have come out with outlandish things. You will answer for your behaviours, it wouldn’t matter if it was anyone between Cllr O’Boyle and Cllr Brennan made a motion I wouldn’t let you call it rubbish so you’re not going to call mine rubbish either. Show a bit of respect because you were brought up with none unfortunately.”

Addressing the Council Chamber Cllr Declan Bree described the motion as “Interesting” and acknowledged, “It is something I hadn’t noticed and I think it is important it comes out in public at a plenary meeting.

"I’m still confused – you asked the question why are some submissions published on the website and others are not published. We haven’t been told why. Who decides the submission from Mr A will be published but the submission from Mrs B will not be published. I’m not having it clarified. Either everything should be published or nothing should be published. It doesn’t make any sense to me unless there is some rational explanation from the top table.”

Attempting to clarify matters Cllr Gilroy explained, “There are two in our Municipal District at the moment. One that is ongoing and one that is closed. In relation to the one that is closed a day or two before it closed someone rang me and asked ‘why is my submission not published’.

"I think it is important that these are published – obviously they have to be checked to make sure there is nothing offensive or anything like that but once they have gone through due process and there is nothing outlandish being said.

“They can be wrong, we are all entitled to be wrong but it should be there. It’s something that we should do, perhaps we will refer to the procedures committee and we ask that they are published in future.

"The public needs to know that it is not us that made that decision as elected members and that we would like see how is saying what because we don’t want anyone hidden behind a screen that might be behind a screen might be making outlandish things at submissions.”

Ms Concannon reiterated that all of the submissions pertaining to reserved functions are published.

"In terms of the non-statutory consultations, there are different levels of consultation and I do think it is a fair point that we need to have consistency in terms of the different types of public consultations.

"Some public consultations are at a very early stage, very non-statutory and a very early stage in a project and we want to get as much community feedback as possible on these projects and we don’t want in any way to publish submissions that may give the effect of limiting public engagement.

"I think it is a fair point when a project becomes a project we need consistency in terms of are we publishing the names, are we publishing the issues or are we publishing the actual submission and that is something that as different Directors we need to consider ourselves and maybe put it forward potentially through an SPC (strategic policy committee).”

Sligo County Council Chief Executive Martin Lydon commented: “I think it is unfortunate how the conversation has gone. We conduct our business in a very open and transparent way.

"The first thing I would like to say is consultation processes – we are just showing good practice on the non-statutory stuff. What you will usually find is the people who get very upset is because we are taking account of what the engineering expertise is telling us to do.

"You can’t please everybody, but I am happy that we will publish non-statutory consultation pieces from now on. I have absolutely no issue in doing that and will be very clear where it is a reserved function and it is an executive function because there is a difference there.

"I think until such time as it becomes a reserved function the executive have decisions to make in relation to funding and if we take in Active Travel, I think the complaint has been that all we are doing is making plans and not getting on with projects so we'd actually like the room to get on with some projects as well.

"I think we need to be clear on this, people who say it wasn’t published, it doesn’t mean we didn’t take account of the views that were sent in. We may not agree with them, but that is not to say we didn’t respond to them as part of the consultation process.

"The last thing I would not like to happen as we leave the room is that the Executive here doesn't conduct it’s business in an open and transparent manner because nothing could be further from the truth.”

The debate concluded with Cllr Gilroy commenting, “The answer completely satisfies me and I am accepting of the reply I got.”

Article Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.