Introduction by the Chairman
Over the years, the Standards Commission has made many recommendations for amendments to both the Electoral and Ethics legislation. Some of these recommendations are again highlighted in Appendix 1 to this annual report. The Standards Commission welcomes the proposals in the government’s Programme for National Recovery 2011 - 2016 for wide-ranging changes in both areas which will address several of the Commission’s concerns.
The Ethics legislation, which embraces both the Ethics in Public Office Acts and the Local Government Act 2001, is complex and contains many anomalies. For example, Part 15 of the Local Government Act 2001 which deals with the ethical framework for local authority members and employees, provides for a wide range of offences for certain contraventions, e.g., failure to disclose a registrable interest, while the Ethics Acts do not provide for criminal sanctions for similar contraventions.
Furthermore, there is no clear complaints mechanism specified in Part 15 of the Local Government Act and this serves to confuse and frustrate members of the public who may become aware of improper activity in local government. Defects in the complaints mechanism were highlighted in a case involving a complaint against a Mayo County Council employee which is described in more detail later in this report. Following the Commission’s investigation in this case, I wrote to the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government about the lack of a specific complaints mechanism and about other concerns of the Commission arising from the case.
A major concern arising from that County Mayo case was the almost complete absence of records relating to the use of significant public resources. Such poor practices ought not to be tolerated and must be eliminated. Accordingly, I requested that the Minister review the use of discretionary funds by local authority members on a national basis with a view to ensuring that scarce public resources are used by local authorities in the public interest and not in the interest of private individuals, whether they be local authority employees, members of local authorities or any other persons.
In 2008, the Commission suggested to the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the Ethics legislation, that the law be amended to enable the Commission to sit for the purposes of an investigation hearing or for the purposes of a decision relating to an investigation with a quorum of 3 of the 6 members of the Commission. The current law requires the presence of all 6 members of the Commission for such sittings. This is in contrast to routine Commission meetings where a quorum of 3 members is sufficient. Given the already heavy demands on the time of the ex officio members of the Commission - the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the Clerks of Dáil and Seanad Éireann - arising from their official duties, it is very difficult, sometimes at very short notice, to find dates and times on which all members are free to attend. The reduced number required would also be more in line with current demands for ensuring efficiency whenever possible.
The requirement that all six Commissioners attend an investigation sitting can therefore lead to delays in finalising investigations; this is unfair to all concerned, not least the person against whom the complaint has been made. The Commission would welcome an indication that its 2008 suggestion is being favourably considered. It may also be opportune to provide for other more flexible means of investigation, particularly for minor cases, and reserve the full public hearing for the more serious matters.
The independence of the Commission is mandated by statute - section 33 of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 provides that the Commission and its members shall be independent in the performance of their functions under the legislation. The annual reports of the Commission, however, are furnished to the Minister for Finance who must lay the annual report before each House of the Oireachtas within 2 months. It is the act of laying the report that triggers publication and circulation of the report to the members of the Oireachtas and to the public. The Commission does not therefore control the date of publication of its own report and this is not appropriate for an independent body. This is recognised in the Electoral Acts where the Commission reports to the Oireachtas and not the Minister. In contrast to the Commission, independent office holders, such as the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Ombudsman, submit their reports directly to the Oireachtas. The Commission believes that it also should report under the Ethics Acts directly to the Oireachtas.
Finally, I would like to thank my fellow Commissioners for their contributions during the year. I would also like to thank the staff of our secretariat and our secretary for their efficiency, dedication and commitment to their work during 2010.