THE public do NOT have a right to know the details of why a top York city council director left the authority, its top officer has claimed.

City of York Council chief executive David Atkinson said the public interest was "better served" by refusing to reveal information surrounding the suspension and departure of former commercial services director David Finnegan.

Mr Atkinson has come under pressure from York MP Hugh Bayley and a growing number of city residents to publicly release details about the council's parting with Mr Finnegan.

Mr Finnegan, who lives in Easingwold, was suspended in August in an inquiry which council sources said was linked to "very sensitive disciplinary issues".

He left the authority last month after councillors, with the exception of Labour leader Dave Merrett, settled on a "compromise agreement".

Coun Merrett rejected the settlement, claiming it was not good value for either the council or York taxpayers.

The council has turned down a Freedom of Information (FoI) Act request about the settlement from the Evening Press.

And in a letter to local businessman Terry Smith, who also submitted an FoI request, Mr Atkinson said Mr Finnegan's case was "an important exception to the council's usual policy of open government and accountability".

He wrote: "But it is necessary to ensure that, when staff reasonably expect their privacy to be protected, they can be sure it will be unless there are compelling reasons to intrude.

"In addition, the agreement includes clauses which mean that disclosure in this case could result in legal action which, I am advised, would be likely to succeed, at further cost to the taxpayer."

Mr Atkinson said because two of the council's most senior officers were involved in negotiating the agreement with Mr Finnegan, misuse of public cash was not an issue - with the agreement also being provided to the council's external auditor.

He concluded: "I consider that this level of professional scrutiny is an adequate substitute for the usual public access to council records.

"Therefore the public interest is better served, in this case, by refusing, rather than disclosing, the information you have requested."

Mr Smith said: "There is an interest in public figures and into how taxpayers' money is spent. It must be accountable."

Updated: 09:32 Saturday, November 19, 2005