An interesting dispute emerged at the September meeting of Waterford’s Plenary Council, when Cllr. Lola O’Sullivan called out Cllr. John Hearne’s social media activity, saying he had criticised Cllr. Pat Nugent and herself for using a €10,000 security allowance.
Cllr. O’Sullivan also claimed that Cllr. Hearne liked a comment calling Cllr. Nugent and herself ‘gravy train parasites.’
Cllr. O’Sullivan used the allowance for security gates while Cllr. Nugent claimed the allowance for gates and CCTV.
Articles concerning these allowances were first published in February but new online articles were published again in August quoting the same details.
“I was very disappointed to see a councillor’s social media who criticised myself and Cllr. Nugent in relation to us availing of the security fund recently,” she explained. “Which the AILG [Association of Irish Local Government] fought hard for, and we had a member of his own party [Sinn Fein] on that AILG at the time.
“One of the most offending things for me was when a person on his Facebook pages called myself and Cllr. Nugent ‘gravy train parasites’ which Cllr. Hearne felt the need to approve of that and give it a thumbs up,” she said.
“What I want to know from Cllr. Hearne,” she continued. “Is does he refer to myself and Cllr. Nugent as the only ‘gravy train parasites’ or is he referring to everybody on this council who received the funding?”
THE ORIGINAL POST
In the original post Cllr. O’Sullivan is referring to, Cllr John Hearne said: “I remember when my car was petrol bombed and my life was threatened by a criminal gang not one called me from the council, the garda told me not to cycle anywhere as the gang might run me down”.
“They never mentioned buying a gate. If you now feel your life is in danger you can spend €10,000 of taxpayer’s money but would you buy a gate. It’s a sad day for criminals in Waterford when they don’t know how to open a gate or climb over it or wait till you come out. The way to beat criminals is to fight them and lock them up, not hide.
“We should never back up, back off or walk away when our community is threatened and that includes Councillors.”
SUPPORT FOR O’SULLIVAN
Cllr. O’Sullivan’s comments were supported by other councillors who spoke up in the council chamber. Director of Services Ivan Grimes pointed out that these security allowances are available to all public representatives to enhance their domestic security.
He said there was significant take-up of the allowance from TDs and members of the Seanad.
Mayor Liam Brazil supported his Fine Gael colleagues, saying that councillors receive more scrutiny that TDs and Senators for using the same allowances, and suggested that fears around safety could be keeping women out of politics.
“I think as councillors, we have a responsibility not to add to the toxicity out there for politics,” said Cllr. Mary Roche.
“Politics is a noble calling for all of us in this chamber. It is one where we put our hand up and say we would like to help our community. It is nothing more than that.”
Cllr. Joe O’Riordan criticised the media and said a councillor’s security arrangement in their home should remain private.
“Surely local media outlets whether they are radio or press should consider whether they are creating rage-bait when they start to put stuff on Facebook. Putting this sort of stuff on Facebook and social media only serves to attract vile and personal abuse from some of those critical of the expense or the issue,” he said.
“I find it extraordinary that a security matter found it’s way to the media on the basis that security should be and is confidential. I don’t think it’s very fair if somebody puts in something in their house, it might not be gates, it might be cameras or whatever, it should never have it all over media that a certain councillor has cameras, that should be confidential. It’s the way in industry your security is confidential and kept confidential.
“Councillors are human, they are devoted to their communities, they have families, they work long hours but the personal vitriol is sometimes beyond the pale.”
Cllr. O’Riordan also referenced death threats made to himself and his family last year when he supported the potential sale of land to build a mosque in Waterford.
HEARNE’S REPLY
Cllr. O’Sullivan was eager for Cllr. Hearne to reply, explaining that she named him personally so that he could respond.
“I know more about intimidation and strife than most,” Cllr. Hearne said. “My own car was burnt out and I suffered attacks in the past. I am very well versed in security. I worked in personal security protection people in the past, I did door work for years and I know a lot about protecting people.
“I addressed this issue at the last district meeting that I think €10,000 to spend on a gate is an awful lot of money. That’s my opinion, I think that’s the case. If you can walk around a gate, climb over a gate or get past a gate, and you’ve spent ten grand, I think it is poorly spent.
“I have advocated in the past where the council have a system where we tie in with the Guards where we have a mini CAB [Criminal Assets Bureau] in Waterford, because I know from my past and history that unless you go after criminals, take them on and lock them up, it doesn’t help councillors if we lock ourselves away. We should be on the ground fighting forcefully against people like that.”
Cllr. Hearne also made the point that the Council themselves have to get three tenders if they want to buy even a wheelchair, he said Councillors should be subject to the same rule, and that the current system of just sending in a bill to be paid was wrong.
“The allegation that I would disrespect any [Council] member, that’s absolute nonsense. I respect every member here and always have done,” Cllr. Hearne added.
AARON KENT Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
