Peter Gilroy

Former Kent County Council chief executive Peter Gilroy says he will “do the right thing” over a controversial £18,350 payment.

Mr Gilroy, who left the authority last year, authorised the payment for running the 2009 county council elections despite already earning a salary of more than £210,000.

It has now been revealed in a KCC report that the payment was “not permitted in law”, prompting calls for a police investigation to be launched and the money recovered.

But Mr Gilroy told KoS it was actually he who commissioned the report because he felt uneasy about authorising the payment at the time.

He said: “I’m now in discussion with KCC and together we will make the right decision. This was an open, transparent process in which I sought advice at the time and followed previous practice.

“If something has gone wrong then I will do whatever is appropriate. If they say that ]paying the money back] is the only way to rectify this then I will do the right thing.

“If there was something to hide then I would never have sought advice in the first place.”

Details of the payment were revealed in a report to members of the council’s electoral and boundary review committee.

Lib Dem Cllr Tim Prater said the group was told such controversial payments had been happening for many years under various chief executives, but that there were no plans to claim the money back.

“If this had happened at any other organisation then it would be a matter for the auditors and the police,” he added.

“Peter Gilroy was the highest paid chief executive in the country and for him to not know [about the law] strikes me as startling. He should have known better and shouldn’t have been allowed to get away with it.

“I think if anyone else wrote themselves a cheque for £18,350 their employer would probably go to the police, and I think they should be considering if there is a case to answer.”

Responding to Cllr Prater’s criticism, Mr Gilroy said it was “silly” to suggest the situation was a criminal matter.

He added: “This was not fraudulent. It was an open issue that was discussed with everyone at the time, so it’s not like the MPs’ expenses scandal. This was a one-off issue.”

The report to the KCC committee revealed that while returning officers in Parliamentary elections may levy charges for their services, returning officers in local elections may only recover “expenses properly incurred”.

It has now been agreed that members will clarify the way such issues are managed and lay out a payment structure that will be reviewed on an annual basis.

A KCC spokesman said: “Members wanted to clarify the way county council elections and the associated costs involved are calculated and approved.

“This is in line with what is being done nationally to standardise the process and as part of the reorganisation of the council.

“It is fair and reasonable for the county returning officer and the deputy returning officers and their staff in the district and borough councils to be reimbursed for the work they do in supporting the county council election process every four years – and appropriate for any payments for this work to be made on a standardised basis and approved at member level within KCC.”