Early retirement deal for Glasgow council chief executive not 'lawfully approved'

An early retirement deal for Glasgow City Council’s former chief executive was not “lawfully approved” by the local authority, a new report has outlined.

Annemarie O’Donnell received a £357,845 “in year” contribution to her pension when she left the council in 2024.

Elaine Galletly, former director of Legal and Administration, received a £223,065 pension contribution and £59,971 for “compensation for loss of office”.

Council leader Susan Aitken and city treasurer Ricky Bell raised concerns over the payments while questions were also raised through Freedom of Information requests.

The council carried out an initial review before instructing lawyers to investigate the exit packages of five staff members.

The review looked into the circumstances in which payments were made and the approval process which led to them.

Brodies LLP found 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” but that the applications for the other four staff members were.

Their report adds that O’Donnell’s retirement was “not supported by the Restructure Report and that while her retirement had been linked to the deletion of the post of executive director of Development and Regeneration Services, there was no clear justification for doing so”.

However, there was no evidence found that would conclude that any of those who received a severance or retirement package acted improperly.

“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”, the report reads.

“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.”

They failed to find any evidence that elected members were asked to approve individual applications for severance or retirement but that there was no reasonable basis for the sums paid to be recovered.

The lawyers outlined that the Restructure Report should have been the subject of elected member input, rather than being approved solely by officers, “particularly as the officers who were involved in approving it also benefited from its terms by being proposed for early retirement/severance packages”.

There was no finding that the report was approved unlawfully because doing so was within the delegated authority of the chief executive and solicitor to the council/director of governance.

In summary, the council report states that Douglas Ross KC believes that nothing suggests a criminal offence was committed or that any officer acted unlawfully.

It adds: “The Opinion [KC] does note what is referred to as an ‘informal’ and ‘casual approach to processes’ and that the whole process gave rise to “an appearance of conflict of interest”.

“Counsel notes that a course of action which would have avoided this appearance, and a possible failure to act selflessly and objectively, would have been to put the Restructure Report to the relevant council committee for approval.

Brodies recommended that the council consider whether a committee should be required to approve any early retirement or severance arrangements for officers above a particular pay grade.

The council is also advised to set out the internal process which should be followed for the approval of early retirement or severance arrangements in respect of senior officers.

They have also recommended that the council keeps an electronic record of all approvals necessary in terms of the Scheme of Delegated Functions relating to the approval for early retirement and/or severance and service restructures.