19-05-2025
Ethics watchdog opens hearing into Cork TD Ken O'Flynn's comments in 2021 radio interview
The public ethics watchdog has opened a hearing into radio interview comments and social media posts relating to the Traveller community made by Cork North Central Independent Ireland TD Ken O'Flynn when he was a city councillor.
The Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) heard an outline of the allegations against him on Monday morning, and heard a preliminary application from Mr O'Flynn's legal team, as it seeks to determine if the comments and posts contravene the Local Government Act 2001, and various sections of the Code of Conduct for Councillors, and therefore warrants a full investigation.
The Sipo investigation was triggered following a complaint about comments Mr O'Flynn made on Cork's RedFM in 2021 in relation to the Spring Lane halting site at Ballyvolane.
A complaint about the comments to the council's ethics registrar was dismissed, and following a complaint to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, it said the interview lacked balance and had the effect of stigmatising residents of the halting site.
Another complaint was made to Sipo and at Monday's preliminary hearing, Sipo's legal representative, Conor Feeney BL, outlined the three key allegations against Mr O'Flynn to the six-person commission, chaired by Garrett Sheehan.
The first relates to comments Mr O'Flynn made during the RedFM interview on June 16, 2021, in relation to a report by the Children's Ombudsman into the appalling conditions facing children at the Spring Lane halting site, including the comment: 'What are they now? An ethnic minority?'
Mr Feeney said it was alleged Mr O'Flynn contravened the Local Government Act 2001 and in so doing failed to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest.
It is alleged he did not keep faith with the public trust, did not observe the highest ethical standards in the performance of his role as a councillor, did not act in a way that enhances public trust and confidence, did not act in a way that serves the local authority and its people conscientiously, honestly and impartially.
It is further alleged he did not act in a way that promotes equality and avoids bias, did not seek to ensure his conduct did not bring the integrity of his office or of local government into distribute, and did not act in a matter that maintains proper standards of integrity, integrity and concern for the public interest, all of which are in breach of various sections of the Code of Conduct for Councillors.
Mr Feeney said the second allegation relates to Mr O'Flynn's conduct on a Facebook social media account in his name.
It is alleged he published and/or authorised the publication of statements demonstrating a biased view of members of the Traveller community, and that he failed to monitor and/or remove comments exhibiting bias towards the Traveller community and other minority groups, including those of an inflammatory and derogatory nature which were made in reply to his statements.
It is alleged he expressly endorsed those comments by using the 'like' feature on Facebook.
Mr Feeney alleged this was a breach of Section 168 of the Local Government Act 2001 in that he failed to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest, and that this was also a breach of several sections of the Code of Conduct for Councillors.
An additional breach was it contravened a specified section in relation to the unacceptable use or misuse of social media in relation to content that promotes, fosters or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, disability age race religious beliefs or membership of the travelling communities.
And finally, Mr Feeney said the combination of the first two allegations collectively amounted to specified act within the meaning of Section 4 of the Standards of Public Office Act 2001.
Mr O'Flynn's barrister, Brian Leahy BL, instructed by Ronan Deasy Solicitor, gave various grounds for dismissing a Sipo investigation, arguing the radio interview was not part of the statutory duties of a city councillor, and his comments on the Ombudsman report were "fair comment".
He said the interview was wide-ranging, but started with the housing issue, a serious problem for everyone in society, but especially the Traveller community.
'We have a problem with housing in the Travelling community, we have a problem with housing in the whole community, we can either ignore that, and not talk about it, or try and come up with a solution,' he said.
'And I say that's what Mr O'Flynn was doing.
'Did he step on people's toes? Absolutely. And isn't right that we step on people's toes.
'Isn't it right that we say 'I disagree with you, and here's why' because if we stop that, what is the use of political debate?"
He said Mr O'Flynn has had more than 400,000 Facebook interactions over the years, and some of the posts referred to in this complaint were published before updated guidance for politicians on social media use.
He highlighted the right to free expression, urging caution of any investigation into comments in the political sphere.
'If the State, through the commission are going to interfere with someone's right to free expression in the political sphere, it needs to be very much balanced in the favour of the person who has expressed an opinion,' he said.
'In the 1980s, you wouldn't criticise the Catholic Church. Now you can criticise the Catholic Church. And it's important that we do criticise organs of the State.
'But if we are constantly looking over our shoulders and saying 'I can't x, y or z, or believe I can't say', we don't get to talk about what we need to talk about.
'If we stop communicating, we end up with Brexit and Trump.'
The commission adjourned to listen to the radio interview, and when chairperson Mr Sheehan returned, he asked where was the cut-off point between freedom of speech and offensive speech of a type that needed to be constrained, if there should be a higher threshold for politicians in relation to that, where does the function of a councillor end, and if the Facebook comments were still online.
Mr Leahy said Mr O'Flynn did not believe he had caused offence, but if he had, he did not intend it, and he apologises.
He said Mr O'Flynn's husband, two members of staff and a PR company would have had access to his social media accounts, but after the complaint was made, and on reflection, the 'offending' comments were 'unliked'.
There was extensive legal argument, with Mr Feeney concluding by telling the commission it now had to consider if the matters were of a sufficient degree of gravity to warrant a full investigation, to consider if certain elements of the complaint were removed, did that render the remainder of the complaint 'frivolous', and if certain allegations were to removed, was there sufficient evidence to sustain a complaint.
The commission has now adjourned to determine whether a full investigation into Mr O'Flynn's conduct will follow.
The commission has also been told Mr O'Flynn intended to make an application for his costs.
