wtf is going on? Bizzarre
The reason why I think she would be in breach is set out in the reply to syd above. The LGA tries to cover every conceivable angle relating to land and property dealing, even going as far as to say being "a party to any arrangement or agreement (whether or not enforceable) concerning land".
There is a very good reason for this wide ranging scope, as spelt out in the code of conduct:
The test to be applied by a councillor is not just what s/he might think - but rather whether a member of the public knowing the facts of the situation would reasonably think that the interest concerned might influence the person in the performance of his or her functions.
And they go as far as to to identify land development and property transactions as an area in which to exercise caution:
This is more relevant where the nature of a councillor's occupation, profession or business is such that it interfaces to a significant degree with local authority functions (e.g. related to land development or property transactions). There is a special onus in such councillors to clearly demonstrate the separation between personal business interests and their role as an elected member of the local authority.
With all this in mind it is absurd to believe that the legislation does not oblige a councillor to disclose that he or she or a connected person is an interested party in acquiring land that the council are taking the decision to sell, and that discussion has been specifically prompted by the expression of interest of the interested party.
The code of conduct is written expressly to guide councillors on how to interpret and comply with the Local Government Act.
In this context the defence that Dr O'Connor did not have personal business interests related to land development or property transactions is absurd.
Do you actually know what "arrangement or agreement" means?
Also breaching the code of conduct is not a crime.
And yet it doesn't. I suggest you stop presupposing the intention of the legislation and focus on what it actually says. Absent an agreement or arrangement (none existed) or a financial exposure (none existed) or ownership (none existed) then it does not fall under the scope of the act. As is quite clearly spelled out.
You and I appear to agree that whatever way you consider this, it's not a good look, its a clear cut case of a breach of the code of conduct, and in an ideal world it would have been better if he had made a full disclosure?
Is that a fair assessment of what we do agree on? Did I miss anything?
You really should read this thread because this has already been discussed. As I have already stated, the use of the words "whether or not enforceable" is intended to capture contracts that:
An "expression of interest" is not an "arrangement or agreement", because requires two parties to "arrange" or "agree" to something. Rather it is an "invitation to treat" (you can google what that means).
I am not claiming that Collin's wife an agreement or arrangement whether enforceable or not. I quoted that passage as an example of the extremely wide scope that the legislation covers, particularly in relation to land. That was also why I quoted the code of conduct.
All to illustrate the point I subsequently made:
The key words are "profession, business or occupation [...] that relates to dealing in or developing land". And at the time of the Bruff Area Committee meeting, "dealing in or developing land" was not her area of business. She was considering buying land to expand her GP practice, but that does not make it her "profession, business or occupation".
And you think that holds true even if she had been a councillor?
No requirement to disclose in those circumstances?
I suspect nothing you are going to say will penetrate the shield hometruths has put up.
The absurdity is that the legislation would be so broad as to include a letter of enquiry, as an example of a beneficial interest which legally must be declared.
As I have already said, yes...
We agree pretty much solely on the fact that its not a good look. A politician with an ounce of cop on probably would have made a point of recusing himself (though again, under absolutely no obligation to do so). However, being a bad politician is not a crime.
I do not agree it is a clear cut breach of the code of conduct. I think its a potential one, but when the code says that councillors should consider recusing themselves even from entirely legal proceedings for the purposes of the image of integrity (which I agree is important) it is inherently going to be subjective as to what falls under that heading.
With all this in mind it is absurd to believe that the legislation does not oblige a councillor to disclose that he or she or a connected person is an interested party in acquiring land that the council are taking the decision to sell
I'm not rehashing the "decision to sell" thing again, but I don't need to believe what the legislation should cover, it spells it out very, very clearly. And it did not oblige Collins to do diddly squat.
Ok, we disagree, your entitled to your opinion, and that's fine.
I take the opposite view. As does Larbre34, who confirmed that earlier in the thread.
And they are a former local council planner. Quite why you have such a problem with this experienced opinion, I have no idea.
Let's turn this around - how was she engaged in a "profession, business or occupation [...] that relates to dealing in or developing land"?
Many people have various different business interests other than just a specific job that they have an employment contract for.
I've no idea what age you are, whether you remember 2006/7 well, but I do, and at the time this all happened every Tom, Dick and Harry had property related business interests outside of the day job. It was all the rage.
Or to put it another way, they were engaged in the business of property investment/development.
Dr O'Connor was no different to a huge number of others.
I remember it well. Half the teachers in the local parish school were in on it. But there is a world of difference between moonlighting as a property developer and acquiring premises for use in your business.
So essentially if she's building apartments a disclosure is required. Because she's a property developer.
If she's building a medical centre no disclosure is required. Because she's a GP.
I wonder if she wanted to build apartments on top of medical centre what would that make her.
As it turned out she never built the medical centre, presumably because the arse fell out of the business of treating sick people.
Medical business must never have recovered either, because ultimately she decided to build 5 residential houses instead. And tried to sell them to the council.
Nice work if you can get it.
Seems Chay was a visitor to the Russian Embassy. There’s more to come I’d imagine about the motivation of some of the “main men” behind the Ditch.
Never fear for paddys on the case
Why this was neccessary if as the ditch already reported the gardai were looking into it only paddy knows, possibly to feed his monumental narcissistic ego?
Straight to the shredder.......
Such an ego. Submitted to the Commissioner mind you.
28 pages wouldn't make it past the firewall. P thinks he's too good to go through the same channels as the rest of us .
A man of Paddy’s wealth, education and breeding should be entitled to deliver it direct to the Commissioner himself. Hopefully the Commissioner cancelled all his meetings so he could give Patrick his full and undivided attention.
must have printed it in 32mm font
Simples...
The govmt exposed themselves to this strategy by their blanket insistence that NC, a politician with a well-dodgy public history, should not have to answer any questions. This show of strength by govmt and media did not go unnoticed.
The Garda Commissioner then is an obvious next channel and let's see if they'll also obediently row-in.
You just need to ensure that these various parties are forced to demonstrate their political allegiances in public and their behaviours will be tempered.
The “strategy” being, they think nothing illegal occurred? Hardly unusual.
Is he asking for donations? That’s how AE911 rolls too.
That's not a great analogy though is it? Coming back to the actual scenario and if we are to believe your opinion is correct, the Garda will respond that NC hasn't committed any crime based on the statement provided, ie there's nothing to investigate
Don't be a silly Billy.
You posted that there must be something to investigate, if the Gardai are investigating. Thing is, if a complaint is made to the Gardai, what is it you think they are paid to do?
Well yes, if the gardai are investigating there must be something to investigate - that's obvious isn't it? If they felt no crime was committed then they wouldn't initiate an investigation.
Also, I have experience of gardai doing nothing when a complaint of criminal wrongdoing has been made - the gardai acted as judge and jury.
How do you still not understand this? All they said they was they are looking into it, as someone like the ditch or paddy reported it to them and they doing their jobs said they will look into it that's literally all that happened. They have not formally declared anywhere and it has not been reported by anyone they have opened an official investigation. If they had paddy and the ditch would be shouting about it from the rooftops and paddy wouldn't have felt the need to submit a waste of 28 pages to the commissioner.
If they felt no crime was committed then they wouldn't initiate an investigation.
nope
they are duty bound to instigate an investigation if someone reports a crime:
And what happens if they don't deem what has been reported to be a crime?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2b6abd1dfa48dd1de9143b108494281e.svg)
