"I will not be withdrawing my comments," he told Monday's meeting of Sligo County Council.

Responding to the County Manager's comments on the matter, Clr. Bree said this issue related to a matter that came to a head at a meeting of Sligo Borough Council on November 3rd 2008 in respect of a recommendation by senior officials that a sum of €1.3 million be handed over to a private development company to assist it build a bridge to its private development adjacent to the Glasshouse Hotel.

Clr. Bree said he had no hesitation in describing the proposal from the council executive as disgraceful.

He added: "I pointed out that on November 10th 2004, planning permission was granted to the development company. Condition No.3 of the planning permission stated: 'The pedestrian bridge shall be completed and open to public access within six months of the occupation of any of the apartments in the residential building.'

"In fact the official minutes of the meeting of November 3rd highlight a comment I made that there was significant public concern about the fact that officials wanted to hand over €1.3 million of pubic monies to a private development company. I made it clear then that in my opinion this was considered daylight robbery and the public would not stand for it.

"When I refused to withdraw my comments all the senior officials walked out of the meeting."

Clr. Bree said that following that meeting, the County Manager issued instructions to Borough Council staff not to attend any further meetings of Sligo Borough Council. This was despite requests from the council and the mayor.

He said it was only in December 2008 when the mayor, as a last resort, exercised power under the Local Government Act and instructed the county manager to attend statutory meetings, that the manager and/or his Director of Services began attending Borough Council meetings again.

Clr. Bree said the county manager then decided to establish a "formal investigation" to investigate complaints made against me by the officials who walked out of the Borough Council meeting on November 3rd.

Clr. Bree said the Local Authority Members Association (LAMA), the national representative body for councilors, had already stated that it was unacceptable that the (non-elected) management of the council would attempt to interfere in a matter where it had no statutory authority and in particular the establishment of a special investigative enquiry by management in respect of the alleged behaviour of elected representatives at council meetings.

He said LAMA has also pointed out that under Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act, 2001, the rules governing the conduct of meetings of a Local Authority and the rules pertaining to such meetings were solely a matter for the elected members of the local authority

Clr. Bree continued: "I made the point at the time the investigation was being established that when more and more people believed that there was a need for a public inquiry into matters relating to the recommendation by Council officials that a sum of €1.3 million be handed over to a private development company to assist them build a bridge to their private development, I found it incredible that that County Manager wanted to establish an investigation into the working behaviour of a public representative who had highlighted the scandal.

"It has always been my view that what was going on was nothing more than a charade and an attempt to set up a sideshow and divert public attention away from the scandalous recommendation made by senior Council officials," Clr. Bree said.

He said the so called "Formal Investigation" was an investigation that he was refused the right to attend, to hear the evidence of the complainants; was an investigation where he was refused the right to question the complainants; was an investigation where he was not given the right to ask relevant questions about the circumstances giving rise to the walk-out of the 3rd November and in particular to the recommendation that the Borough Council hand over €1.3 million to a developers to assist them build a bridge to their private development.

He also said it was an investigation that the media was not allowed to attend; was an investigation where he was advised that in the event of him being dissatisfied with the findings that he could appeal the case to the County Manager or to an "independent" person approved by the County Manager; was an investigation where particular "witnesses" were selected by the Council executive; was an investigation where only a portion of documentation was presented for consideration; and was an investigation that was compromised from its inception.

Clr. Bree referred to the County Manager saying that the investigation was carried out in an entirely independent manner by the two investigators with no involvement whatsoever by himself as Manager.

"However I have evidence to the contrary," said Clr. Bree, who claimed that on the 12th of January last year, the Council in a letter to the Local Government Management Services Board sought advice on the appointment of external investigators for the formal investigation.

He said that in a reply dated January 14th, a senior staff member of the Local Government Management Services Board stated that the Board would recommend Mr. Patrick Cahill, Solicitor, and Ms Margaret Considine of Equity Consulting Ltd as suitable qualified independent investigators.

Clr. Bree continued: "However as a result of documentation released by the Local Government Management Service Board under the Freedom of Information Act, I have evidence indicating that a meeting between the County Manager and the two investigators actually took place on the 2nd December 2008, almost six weeks before the Local Government Management Services Board was asked to advise the Council on the appointment of suitably qualified people to conduct the investigation. The sole purpose of that meeting was to discuss the investigation.

"The fact that the County Managers meeting with the investigators took place almost six weeks before the Council sought advice from the Local Government Services Board regarding the appointment of "independent" investigators speaks for itself.

"I believe the County Manager now has an obligation to provide a full explanation as to how he could meet to discuss the case against me with the two investigators almost six weeks before the Council actually sought advice from the Local Government Service Board on the appointment of "independent external investigators".

"According to the so called 'final report' of the Formal Investigation, the comments which I made at the Borough Council meetings of November 3rd and October 20th 2008 in relation to the proposal to hand over €1.3 million to developers, are considered as inappropriate and bullying behaviour. In addition my subsequent statements and interviews with the "Sligo Champion", "Sligo Weekender" and OceanFM, where I repeated what I had said at the Council meetings, are also considered as isolated incidents of misconduct and as inappropriate and bullying behaviour.

"Given the manner in which the so called Formal Investigation was established I have to say that I was not surprised at the outcome.

"In the period since the "final report" was issued, I gather that the County Manager has contacted the Local Government Public Services Board, the City and County Managers Association, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and all the trade unions representing Council staff in a desperate attempt to justify the investigation and in the hope that I might be isolated or forced to change my views. Indeed I understand that one trade union branch, LAPO, the Local Authority Professional Officers branch of SIPTU, has asked its members not to have contact with me.

"I can say here and now that I will be writing to each of these bodies this week advising them of the background to this case and I will also be providing them with the evidence relating to the Formal Investigation discovered under the Freedom of Information Act.

"I can say further that I don't intend to allow this matter of the funding for the bridge to be forgotten. I stand over everything I have said on this issue. I will not be withdrawing my comments. I was elected by the people of this community to represent their views in the Council Chamber. I cannot and will not apologise for telling the truth. The recommendation by senior officials that the Borough Council should hand over €1.3 million to a private development company for the bridge can only be described as scandalous," Clr. Bree concluded.