Ex Chief Exec - Dave Clark

[jude]

I don't think it really matters what the outcome of all the investigations are, as after such an early stage in taking the post, David Clark's reputation is in tatters already and I can't see how he can continue to be Chief Executive of the SIC.

[steno]

How the tables have turned.....

 

Two out of three ain't bad, to coin a phrase.

 

And Mainlander is 100% correct. If the panel find something significant, are they greater investigators that the police; or simply being a pack of pedantic egotistical busy-body's? Call in the Police Complaint Commission with an outside force to re-investigate - hey, after all money is no object in this farce.

 

Should Dave Clark emerge 'unscathed'; does Will's retract his allegations? Does Will's vanish into obscurity? Will Will's be charged for wasting police time? Maybe a sigh of relief from Jonathan, after all, he won't be sharing the same building as the CE then. Oh how both parties will be pleased!

 

Incidentally, I am listening to an appropriate background track whilst typing this.......click the link

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjIoymWHvU

 

A never ending ditty, in common with S.I.C; and as engaging from one generation to the next. Can always raise a smile, start conversation, and yet be the most annoying thing at the forefront of our minds!

 

Yip, Animal looks deceptively like Wills; and as Slatler & Woldrof ask 'just what is he?' I guess many a Shetlinker ask themselves the same question.

 

Hopefully soon to be...."Jonathan...who?

[mainlander]

You may well be right about Mr Clark, Jude.

 

But if there is found to be no substance to the claims that have been made, the reputations of Mr Wills and Mr Shannon will also be in tatters, with similar implications for them.

[Caeser]

Never mind whether the CE will survive.

 

What about Cllr Wills reputation?

 

There is, it appears, a complete lack of evidence in respect of the allegations, at present (at least publically)?

 

One persons word against another.

 

Well someone has to be lying? 50 -50 I guess?

 

Where does that leave Joe public?

 

Do you believe the employer or the employee?

[jude]

You may well be right about Mr Clark, Jude.

 

But if there is found to be no substance to the claims that have been made, the reputations of Mr Wills and Mr Shannon will also be in tatters, with similar implications for them.

 

The problem for Mr. Clark is that although there has ''found to be no substance to the claims'' it doesn't really clear his reputation at all with the Shetland public.

 

Mr. Shannon has stayed in Shetland for many years and appears to be a very respected member of the community and within SIC.

 

Doctor Wills has also stayed in Shetland for many years. Most of those years very much in the public eye and the electorate seem to like him. They know what they are getting with him and they must like it.

[unlinkedstudent]

The matter(s) should still be investigated albeit not by the Police. Just because there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution, my understanding is that an investigation for a civil matter aka council matter is that the burden of proof is not as strict as that in criminal proceedings. Just because the Fiscal Prosecutor has decided not to go ahead, it does not mean to say that the alleged events did not take place.

[EM]

And Mainlander is 100% correct. If the panel find something significant, are they greater investigators that the police;

I don't agree on that. Different matters require different burdens of proof. Look at OJ for example, he was aquitted in his criminal trial, but subsequently found guilty in the civil action. That was because criminal and civil law require the establishment of very different levels of guilt probability.

 

I would expect that the Police investigation was dropped because they decided they would not be able to establish anything at the high level of probability required. COSLA on the other hand will be working to a different criteria.

 

As for Jonathan's reputation ending up badly sullied by this? I don't think so.

[Spinner72]

^^ Agreed, as there was little left to damage, and this is just another in a long line of Will's media obsession driven stories.

 

Lets not forget the bullying tactics and complete ignorance of council policy and decisions he has displayed over issues from Street Lighting to the Mareel "debate".

 

Just because he adopted "the view of the people" recently over the AHS many people seem to have developed very short memories.

 

Mr Clark has been very stupid to ignore council rules and regulations, to whatever degree may or may not have happened, and if he is to retain his post, he will have to work very hard to gain the public, and indeed council workforces, respect.

 

That may not be a bad thing, in the long run.

 

Regarding the COSLA enquiry, people seem to be forgetting that it is also to investigate the accusiations of drinking on council premises, so even if Wills were to entirely retract his complaint, the investigation would stil be going ahead.

[steno]

To respond to EM

 

Civil law can condemn an individual on hearsay, with the 'case' having as many holes as a peculator. Criminal proceedings must be watertight.

 

Shall we enter the arena of millions of pounds wasted by SIC over issues we are all aware of? In each and every example, we can identify 'jobs for the boys' mentality, obscene frivolous spend-thrift attitudes; and a complete and utter disregard for the war-chest of funds at the SIC's disposal.

 

Now, would any councillor care to raise a Civil Action against me, a law abiding tax payer; in response to this comment?

 

After all, if what I claim is 'factual', and their actions arguably 'criminal'; who stands where?

 

In short, if the forthcoming investigation by COSLA can establish a wrong-doing, I am damn sure 22,000 Shetlander's can highlight financial irregularities in the SIC.

 

We wanted a 'new broom' that sweeps clean. Now we have one, and the response from certain quarters is typified by saying

 

IT IS OK TO DO SOMETHING.......JUST NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME.

 

Political correctness gone mad this entire affair. If I went to the Police every time my boss and I went head to head, Lerwick station would need to draught in the Flying Squad. Get a grip, and grow up - and that EM is aimed at the SIC, not you personally.

[EM]

We wanted a 'new broom' that sweeps clean. Now we have one, and ...

I think your point highlights a key aspect. Who is in fact the broom? Both of them believe that they are Mr Broom.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^

I have to side with EM, given that I posted the same scenario albeit with different wording prior to his post.

 

I previously worked for several months (temporary, my choice) as a Complaints Investigator Officer for a Local Authority. In an earlier posting on this thread, I made the comments that the complaint would probably be "partially justified" as unless the CEO admitted to the conversation and the call was not recorded, no one would know for definite what got said.

 

However, there is a duty to investigate. Every complaint that is made has to be investigated unless you would want, for example in this case, the Scottish Ombudsman breathing down your neck. The Convener/Council wouldn't be following procedures if some sort of investigation was not carried out.

 

Edit - UNLESS there was strong evidence to illustrate that the Complainant was being vexatious, complaints have to be investigated.

 

I investigated a complaint where the Police were not involved but I suspected fraud. Should I have ignored it in my capacity as an investigating officer or recommended that an external investigator with the necessary skills was brought in?

 

On a separate note, namely that to do with the windfarm, I suspect many councillors will disappear if it can be proven that they have broken procedures. But regarding this particular alleged incident, how many other cases do the Police/Prosecutor not take any further because there were no witnesses?

 

Steady on EM, we've agreed on something!

[Infiltrator]

Doctor Wills has also stayed in Shetland for many years. Most of those years very much in the public eye and the electorate seem to like him. They know what they are getting with him and they must like it.

 

Wills be may a lot of thing but I don't believe he'a a liar, he sticks firmly to his beliefs and isn't afraid to speak his mind.

 

He also not stupid, why after all these years would he risk his place on the council by putting himself in a position where it's his word against someone else's?

I'm sure he thought long and hard about whether to report the incident knowing the possible consequences.

[EM]

.. complete ignorance of council policy and decisions he has displayed over issues from Street Lighting....

I seem to have missed that one and am not familiar with the subject, could you give a brief summary?

[EM]

I have to side with EM, given that I posted the same scenario albeit with different wording prior to his post.

Yeah, sorry about that, I had the "Post a reply" page open too long and it crossed with your post.

 

Steady on EM, we've agreed on something!

Not the first time, remember we are both in the "Ghostrider for councillor, yes he can!" camp

[steno]

Precisely

 

The 'broom' cant sweep much on gardening leave, so let the guy get on with his job. And I don't mean Shannon busy consulting legal-eagles.

 

Come the turn of the year we will have a structured local authority, going about their business, implementing our spending programme; under the direction of a guy who has managed budgets, and delivered ahead of time and on target.

 

The present 'spat' will be the historical performances of Up-Helly-Aa 2010.

 

End of sad chapter, the beginning of a sensible period.

 

They say a week is along time in politics, just maybe local government takes a little longer?