THE STANDARDS in Public Office Commission has found that a Labour councillor in Dublin “acted in good faith” in making a “minor” contravention of the Local Government Act in July 2010.
The commission was handing down a ruling in a complaint brought against Oisín Quinn by Independent councillor Cieran Perry and environmental campaigner Michael Smith.
The complaint centred on a claim that Mr Quinn had contravened the Act by voting on the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 while he and other members of his family owned property on Lower Mount Street.
Mr Quinn had told the Dublin city manager and the city law agent of his interest and said he had been advised by the Dublin city manager and the city law agent that he was entitled to vote on the plan.
Last night he welcomed the fact that “Sipo has concluded that at all times I ‘acted in good faith’ in relation to my role in making the recent development plan for Dublin”.
He also welcomed the finding of the commission that any contraventions of the Local Government Act by him were merely technical infringements that were “minor in nature” and inadvertent.
“The fact that ownership of property in the city by an individual councillor or members of their family is considered by Sipo as not being sufficiently remote an interest to enable a councillor to be involved in motions dealing with residential and office buildings for the entire city raises serious questions about the process,” Mr Quinn added.
He also claimed the decision would effectively preclude any councillor who owned property, or who had a family member who owned a property or an office in the city, from involvement in debates for the entire city in the development plan process.
“In my view, unless addressed, this decision is a precedent that will jeopardise the ability of local authorities to make development plans and it undermines the entire planning process,” he added.
Mr Quinn emphasised that he had from the start disclosed his property interest in his statutory declaration of interests. He also pointed out that he had taken advice from the city manager, city planners and law agent and “was advised that my interest was so remote as to not be significant”.
He added that the ethics registrar of Dublin City Council took the view that the issues discussed were generic to the city at large and did not involve a contravention of the Act.
Mr Quinn also said that no councillor had taken issue with his involvement in the approval of the plan.
Mr Perry and Mr Smith said last night that the commission decision seemed essentially fair. “Part of the problem was the advice given to Oisín Quinn by the management and legal agent of the city council,” they said.
