Lawyers called in to investigate early retirement deals have said former chief executive Annemarie O’Donnell’s exit was not “lawfully approved” in line with council rules.
Legal firm Brodies was asked to carry out the independent investigation into deals for five senior officials. It recommended future agreements are signed off by a council committee.
Douglas Ross KC, who gave his opinion on the findings, said: “Even if the motivation of all of those involved was entirely selfless and proper (which it may have been), that this whole process gave rise to an appearance of conflict of interest should surely have been obvious.
“It is surprising that none of the senior officers involved seems to have recognised it.”
However, he stated there was nothing in Brodies’ report to lead him to think any criminal offence was committed.
City treasurer Ricky Bell, SNP, said the “sobering” report “demands we move swiftly to change our processes”. He and council leader Susan Aitken had raised concerns about the pay-outs.
The investigation related to the exits of five senior officials: Carole Forrest, solicitor to the council and director of governance; Anne Connolly, principal adviser to the chief executive; Robert Anderson, head of HR; Elaine Galletly, head of legal and administration and Annemarie O’Donnell, chief executive.
Agreements included over £317,000 for the former chief executive and more than £280,000 for Ms Galletly. Details of the planned senior management “restructure” had been contained in a report by Mr Anderson, which was sent to the chief executive in 2021.
No evidence to show councillors knew about the exit packages prior to July 2024 was found. The investigation did find severance terms were “in accordance” with council policies and the restructure report had justified them on the grounds of ongoing savings.
However, Brodies believe there wasn’t proper justification for the early retirement of the former chief executive in the restructure report.
Mr Ross KC agreed with that finding, stating: “It is unsatisfactory that the departure of the chief executive on terms that were to cost the council in excess of £300,000 should be proposed, and ultimately approved, on such an apparently flimsy basis.”
Brodies also said councillors should have had a say on the restructure report, particularly as the officials “who were involved in approving it also benefited from its terms”.
There was no finding that the restructure report “approved unlawfully because doing so was within the delegated authority of the chief executive and solicitor to the council/director of governance”.
A council report on the investigation added: “Notwithstanding that finding, it is considered that the former chief executive’s application for early retirement was not, on the face of it, lawfully approved in terms of the council’s scheme of delegated functions.
“It is considered that the approvals for the four other senior officers were carried out within the terms of the scheme of delegated functions.”
It continued: “In relation to the approval of the former chief executive’s application for early retirement, officers approved the application under the scheme of delegated functions on behalf of the council.
“While Brodies conclude that the extent of the delegation was not applicable, they do not consider that it gives rise to improper conduct on the part of individual officers. Ultimately, it would be the council who, on the face of it, acted unlawfully in relation to this matter rather than any individual officers.”
The investigation found there is no “reasonable basis” for the recovery of funds.
Cllr Bell said: “When the leader and I raised questions about exit packages for senior officials with the new chief executive last year, we wanted to know how this had happened, who had approved them — and why neither of us had been made aware.
“We thought it was essential there was an independent, external review of the circumstances — and believed that, whatever the outcome, we should publish the findings in full.
“I’m grateful for this report and though it does not make for comfortable reading, it is a base on which to rebuild trust following these events.
“Members will have the opportunity to discuss the findings in detail next week. However, I’m in no doubt this is a sobering report that demands we move swiftly to change our processes — and to allow Glaswegians to be confident that, in future, councillors will have the appropriate oversight if situations like this arise.”
