Glasgow City Council, Scotland’s largest local authority, has come under intense scrutiny after a damning series of reports revealed that five senior officials, including the former chief executive, received exit payments totaling more than £1 million between 2021 and 2024—with little to no independent oversight or scrutiny by elected officials. The revelations, detailed in investigations by the Accounts Commission, Audit Scotland, and the law firm Brodies, have sparked a heated debate about governance, transparency, and public trust in city government.
At the heart of the controversy is the departure of Annemarie O’Donnell, who retired as chief executive in May 2024 after nearly a decade in the post and more than 30 years in Glasgow’s local government. According to BBC News, O’Donnell received a £357,845 “in year” contribution to her pension as part of her exit package. However, it later emerged that £317,000 of this sum would be repaid after a review found the terms were not lawfully approved. O’Donnell’s early retirement was justified on the grounds of “efficiency” under a senior management restructuring plan, but the Accounts Commission found this rationale “at best, unclear,” especially as her role continued to exist within the council.
The other officials who benefited from the restructuring included Carole Forrest, the council’s former solicitor and director of governance, who received a £95,000 voluntary separation payment; Anne Connolly, principal adviser to the chief executive, who left with pension and redundancy benefits just under £192,000; Robert Anderson, head of human resources, who departed with a package worth just under £148,000; and Elaine Galletly, head of legal and administration, who received a £223,065 pension contribution and £59,971 in compensation for loss of office, as reported by the Glasgow Times and Herald Scotland.
The Accounts Commission, the Scottish Government’s independent public spending watchdog, concluded that the processes, decisions, and actions which enabled these exit payment packages “fell short of the behaviour and standards expected of public servants.” In its official report, the Commission stated that the restructuring proposals “appeared to have been approved by some individuals who directly benefited,” and that the lack of independent scrutiny, transparency, and formal documentation was “deeply concerning.” The report highlighted the absence of councillor oversight and noted that possible conflicts of interest should have been obvious to the senior officers involved.
Andrew Burns, deputy chair of the Accounts Commission, did not mince words in his assessment: “The actions taken by a group of senior staff at Glasgow City Council fell short of the values and principles every public sector worker and councillor are expected to follow. There was a failure to address and document how potential conflicts of interest were considered, and a failure to demonstrate how the guiding principles of working in the public sector—in particular selflessness, integrity and objectivity—had been applied.” Burns further described the findings as “alarming,” adding, “It is alarming to see reports which need to consider the lawfulness of actions within councils, and such circumstances do little to reassure taxpayers about how public money is being used.”
Legal firm Brodies, which was commissioned by the council to investigate the deals, found no evidence that the five officers acted improperly, but concluded that the appearance of conflicts of interest was undeniable. Most notably, the firm determined that the exit terms offered to O’Donnell were not “lawfully approved” in line with council rules. Brodies recommended that, going forward, senior officers’ exit packages should be approved by councillors, as there was no evidence that elected members were aware of the details before June 2024.
Police Scotland also conducted extensive inquiries into the situation but reported to the BBC that “no criminality has been established.” While the law may not have been broken, the broader issue of public accountability remains unresolved, with the Commission’s report emphasizing that the process “lacked scrutiny, transparency, and governance,” and failed to demonstrate value for money or adherence to the principles expected in public service.
The political fallout has been swift. Richard Bell, Glasgow City Council’s deputy leader, who previously called for the officials to return their payouts, acknowledged the gravity of the situation: “While neither the independent, external review or this report from the commission make for comfortable reading, they do give us a base to build trust and confidence from—and, I think, they also serve as an important warning to other public bodies. Glasgow had already moved quickly to change processes and allow elected members proper oversight when senior officials leave the council, which is noted in this report. Members must now make sure the council reflects on the commission’s findings and uses them to drive forward a change in culture.”
Scottish Conservative finance and local government spokesman Craig Hoy was even more scathing. “This report could hardly be more damning in identifying what reeks of cover-up and corruption,” Hoy said, as quoted by the Herald Scotland. “Glasgow’s SNP-run council rode roughshod over the rules and, as a result, departing officials received eye-watering payouts with little to no oversight. It’s sadly typical of the way in which the nationalists conduct themselves in office, with a worrying lack of accountability or concern for taxpayers’ money, while putting the interests of themselves and their cronies first. Glaswegians will be rightly furious that, while the SNP administration is slashing essential services and imposing inflation-busting council tax hikes, it found huge sums to hand out to fat-cat bureaucrats.”
In response, a Glasgow City Council spokesperson told the Glasgow Times, “We welcome this report, which reflects the findings of the independent investigation commissioned by the council. The Commission’s findings will support the action the council is already taking to improve oversight and transparency and to rebuild trust; both within the organisation and with the public.” The council has since committed to implementing the auditors’ recommendations, including setting minimum standards for restructure papers, improving documentation, strengthening governance rules, and ensuring that elected members have proper oversight of senior staff departures.
The Accounts Commission, for its part, has announced it will write to all council chief executives and leaders across Scotland to highlight the importance of good governance, value for money, and transparency in decision-making. The move is intended to prevent similar lapses elsewhere and reinforce the standards expected of those entrusted with public funds.
For many in Glasgow and beyond, the episode has raised uncomfortable questions about how public money is managed and how those in positions of power are held accountable. The council’s efforts to rebuild trust and overhaul its procedures will be closely watched—not just by taxpayers, but by public bodies across the country seeking to avoid a similar crisis of confidence.
