Jump to content

Ex Chief Exec - Dave Clark


Twerto
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's not forget a panel employed this guy which consisted of the full Council plus adminstrative staff. They employed this guy as we know and it has been a disaster. Never mind the pay-off - that is bad enough, but what about all the wasted time?

 

If an excellent candidate was in position (from the alleged short-list it didn't seem there was such a candidate) we could have been moving in a very positive diretion for 8 months instead of shifting Shetland into reverse gear so that's effectively 16 months wasted. :evil:

 

Two highly paid members of staff have been absent for long periods of time from post doing nothing - OK it is questionable what Willie Shannon does actually do anyway - other than acting as coffee taster in The Peerie Shop cafe or Skipidock during the working day.

 

What we need to know:

 

What Councillors did not think Mr Clark was suitable for the position during the initial interview?

 

Why wasn't some kind of probationary period insisted on (common in many walks of life, particularly for senior positions) especially given past balls-ups like with Mr Reiter?

 

Where were all the background checks? Surely that would have set alarm bells ringing?

 

The bottom line is that the clowns in the Town Hall have blown more than £250k - it is much much more than that.

 

Let's hope for a breath of fresh air at the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not the case that Mr Clark has taken full advantage of the incompetence of the convenor.

 

There appear to be a number of instances where action and ultimately dismissal could have been taken in the timeline of events to date.

 

I wonder if he will still be pursuing his joint complaint to the Standards Commission against Dr Wills which he submitted along with Clark & Co.

 

In addition, the convenors' lack of judgement over the Bressay Bridge fiasco is likely to cost the SIC iro. £5,000,000 in compensation to the LPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vagaland and many others would also need a mention besides the two mentioned.
To be clear, I was only considering wordsmiths currently alive.

I wasn't.

That's a bit like praising McCartney without Lennon.

You obviously work for the guy hence the slavish eagerness to reply and defend.

Funny how the 'wordsmith' ignores it all.

I agree his work is of an extremely high calibre, but 'wordsmith' cannot surely be applied to what he has posted recently on Shetlink, can it? :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think it's sensible not paying council tax. It's pretty obvious from reading this thread that the Shetland public don't know enough to make a judgement whether there should be a pay off or not. It would be better that we demanded a report before any payment is agreed. This should set out the nature of Clark's claim and the Council's replies to it along with all the legal advice given. Until that is done Shetlanders should consider witholding council tax. The average Shetlander is as able as this bunch of councillors to judge what would be the best course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know what'd make an even playing field for you three icepick239? You stick your real name next to your posts ;)

That would indeed be interesting.

 

I was actually expecting some sort of "this is all off-topic" mod comment. May I suggest we move the discussion to another thread, though I don't know what title would be appropriate.

 

As for me working for Brian! :lol: Not quite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there is one thing to thank this council for.

 

Just when you were completely convinced that it was impossible that anyone could possibly do a worse job than the lot that preceded them, they've gone and proven beyond all doubt how wrong that conclusion was. :shock:

 

So, what the hell are we going to do to make sure that the next lot that get voted in aren't worse than this lot, as none of these can possibly go back in. :?

 

Despite our many faceted debates on this thread, this is the overruling sentiment I totally agree with and feel is at a risk of slipping to the backgroud due to the very public "witch hunt" nature of things directed towards the CE.

 

Lets face it, he of all people is bound to have seen this coming, eventually, and probably realised it was his best bet to get a few bob and move on.

 

It is vital everyone remembers that this has all been caused by the elected members. Some more than others and in various different ways. Clark could really have been anybody caught up in it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we need to know:

 

What Councillors did not think Mr Clark was suitable for the position during the initial interview?

 

Why wasn't some kind of probationary period insisted on (common in many walks of life, particularly for senior positions) especially given past balls-ups like with Mr Reiter?

 

Where were all the background checks? Surely that would have set alarm bells ringing?

 

....and who is the Times' mole? Lets face it, were it not for them and their "leaks" from "private" council meetings, most of what little has become public knowledge probably never would have, or at best after everything was signed and sealed, and too late to try and do anything about it.

 

It comes a little suprise that not once has any comment come forth from the leadership "deploring" the publishing of "confidential" materials all through this, much of everything else seems to have passed them by un-noticed, so why not that too.

 

Quiet possibly more than a few had Wills pegged as feeding the Times, but Cluness' questionable tactics of calling the meeting with him out of the country, and blocking him listening in goes quite some way towards proving otherwise, or at least provides proof there's more than just one wanting the news spread as widely as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quiet possibly more than a few had Wills pegged as feeding the Times, but Cluness' questionable tactics of calling the meeting with him out of the country, and blocking him listening in goes quite some way towards proving otherwise, or at least provides proof there's more than just one wanting the news spread as widely as possible.

 

I don't think Wills was ever a candidate there, as he has shown an inability to comprehend confidetiality regarding council business from day one! :D

 

I think the lack of comment is down to the anonymity. Chances are the council are quite happy for this to be public knowledge, so long as there is nobody, member or official, to point a finger at. (especially the fingers of Clarks lawyers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All contributors to this topic forum will surely be at the market cross on Monday noon, to show their physical support to those rallying to picket the town hall.

 

for those who need to be anonymous, borrow a faas face (mask) and don't forget your banners - nothing rude or offensive of course.

 

Guizers and proclamation could be optional. Pipers and drummers would be good too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...