Ex Chief Exec - Dave Clark

[Ghostrider]

I've just had a look through parts of the Shetland News site.

 

I'll let Dr. Wills speak for himself.

 

My criticisms of Mr Clark include the following:

 

1. His unauthorised deletion of the post of Assistant Chief Executive, without referring the matter to the full council for decision. This was a clear breach of employment law and of the council’s agreements with the staff trade unions.

 

2. The unreasonable pressure exerted on planning and roads staff to produce the answers required, to ignore objections and to meet unreasonable deadlines in connection with the planning application for the new Anderson High School at Knab Road.

 

3. His premature announcement that he had appointed a former business associate to co-ordinate the independent review into the new AHS project, before elected council office-bearers had time to meet the person concerned or to review his less than impressive professional credentials.

 

4. His unauthorised publication of private letters from teachers to Cllr. Gussie Angus.

 

5. His inadequate, incomplete and misleading covering report on the AHS review to the Services Committee on 3rd September, which over-estimated the costs of the alternative site at Lower Staney Hill.

 

6. The scandalous drinking session with a crony in his office all afternoon on 3rd September, during which time other council staff had urgent business to discuss with him, arising from the committee decision that morning.

 

Source .

 

The above part "letter" is dated 14th October, Shannon had put No. 1 in the public domain six weeks before that, as best as I recall 2, 3 & 5 had been raised at council meetings open to the public some weeks prior to that date, so were also long since also public domain. 4 is a matter of public knowledge, or the fact that they were published is, I read them online myself. Who fingered Clark I can't remember without going back and dredging numerous old news reports, but as he was personally in charge of the review, the buck logically stopped with him for it,until or unless he fingered another culprit, which he didn't. Their publishing also well pre-dated October 14th, so the matter was also long term public domain. As for 6, much like 4 I don't recall who did raise the issue initially, but again it was old public domain by October 14th.

 

Wills is simply repeating known information in this, nothing in it constitutes "raising" by any of the commonly understood meanings I know of.

[jz]

^^

 

I agree if raising means being the first to bring to the attention of others, then Dr Wills may not have been the "initialiser" of the criticism. But raising can also mean lifting to a higher level.

 

We will all find out in due course. This has been a sorry saga for all involved, directly or indirectly, and as the cliche goes, nobody is going to be a winner.

 

... except David Clark financially

[unlinkedstudent]

I can't help but wonder if there is a single LA within the UK where a Councillor has not criticised any council employee (but perhaps they were a tad cleverer but, nevertheless, peeps knew who they were referring to).

[Ghostrider]

It's not online, but the Shetland Times reported that Dr Wills had sent a critical email to the Head of Planning (re the site of the new AHS) which he then copied to the media.

 

 

Sorry, I can't remember the date. Dr Wills still acts like a journalist and has not kept to the code of conduct.

 

IMHO, of course.

 

Time will tell.

 

The relevance of that hinges on whether the email was critical of named individual(s) within the planning department, or whether it was simply critical of how the department had behaved.

 

If the former, then very likely he was in breach of his Code of Conduct, but if the latter I'm struggling to see how a breach might come about.

 

If a Councillor was particularly impressed with how a certain section of council employees had handled an issue, and sent a letter of praise to the overall boss of said section, copying it to the local media, I don't think anybody would cry "foul". So why not one of criticism if they're particularly unimpressed with the job done.

 

I don't view that as raising the conduct or capability of employees, rather its expressing an opinion of an outcome. No one employee or group of employees are identifiable as being referred to. Common sense dictates that a number of employees will all have played a part in creating the whole, but not all employees will necessarily have participated. Its simply stating that when all those various small parts came together, they didn't all gel as well as they might have in to one whole.

[Guest Anonymous]

I recall a senior SIC official, long departed, telling me after Jonathon's previous stint as a councillor that he preferred him in the tent pissing out rather outside the tent pissing in.

hmmm , and only 1 upstream which ever way

[Ghostrider]

I agree if raising means being the first to bring to the attention of others, then Dr Wills may not have been the "initialiser" of the criticism. But raising can also mean lifting to a higher level.

 

Fair point. Although "lifting to a higher level" is always going to have an inherent level of subjectivity, which gets us right back to lawyers arguing with lawyers to reach a compromise, and we see where that one has got us lately, £1/2 Million poorer.

 

Not a route to take lightly I don't think.

 

We will all find out in due course. This has been a sorry saga for all involved, directly or indirectly, and as the cliche goes, nobody is going to be a winner.

 

... except David Clark financially

 

Yup, on that much we can definitely agree. Its a double edged sword, thankfully he's gone, but the price is unacceptable.

[icepick239]

It is right and proper that Caroline Gardner of the Accounts Commission investigate what has occurred and which has led to a gross cessation payout to Dave Clark of nearly 500,000.

Nothing but the whole truth will be acceptable.

Both the MP's also seek complete clarity and openness, as does (I think) most of the of the Shetland public.

 

See JUDANE

[Florence]

Is it not the Code of Conduct that should be revisited? As it stands at the moment it doesn't appear to be representive of a democratic administration. If there are matters of serious concern to the general public neither councillors or officials should be allowed to hide behind a seemingly fascist doctrine.

 

Adhering to the Code of Conduct as it stands leaves the door wide open for councillors and officials to mislead the public.

 

Also... the legal issue as regards whistle blowing has not been discussed. I think this legislation would supercede SICs Code of Conduct.

[mainlander]

I agree if raising means being the first to bring to the attention of others, then Dr Wills may not have been the "initialiser" of the criticism. But raising can also mean lifting to a higher level.

 

The definition of "raise" was discussed on the Councillor Conduct thread a couple of months ago:

 

Quite possibly, Ghostrider; as there will be several ways to interpret the word "raise", it will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

However, the online Oxford dictionary gives the definition as "cause to be heard, felt or considered", with no mention of that being for the first time.

 

But other dictionaries may well include that.

 

Edit: I do, of course, realise that will seem pedantic. But, if a line of argument is going to be based on the definition of a word, then it seems sensible to ensure that the definition is correct and not mistaken.

[Ghostrider]

^^ "Cause to be heard, etc...." is always going to be very subjective and debatable. The definition could fall anywhere across a very wide spectrum, from one extreme of arguing that what is in the pubic domain is already freely heard etc, so any further mention is irrelevant, to the other extreme, that any mention by anyone of anything with any connection to the subject is literally causing a material part of the issue to be heard.

 

Those lawyers are going to be kept on keeping busy, and getting fat for a while to come if any meaningful pursuit of a misconduct charge on the grounds of "raising" is to be conducted.

[unlinkedstudent]

Gosh, I see Daddy is onboard now:-

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/02/25/departed-chief-executives-father-mounts-robust-defence-of-his-son

[bresail]

What on earth is going on here?

 

Let us have a look at a word.

DEMOCRACY!

For democracy to work, citizens must not only participate and exercise their rights. They must also observe certain principles and rules of democratic conduct.

We elect our councillors to uphold our rights. At times we do not all benefit from decisions made in council.

We in Shetland we have a weak council and at times their decisions are abysmal. Any bully can come along and rule the roost.

So someone decides to point out these faults.

It was not Wills that started the problem that we have now nor was it the first person to open the can.

We had a Schrödinger’s Can problem!

It was opened and the worms weren't dead, despite a panic to put the lid back on the worms multiplied.

The problem was in the council's lack of courage to say no to bullying. Maybe I should change the word bullying and insert the making of unilateral decisions.

No I wont, You can do that yourself, if required.

 

Wills did keep it going and rightly so. If you have a strong belief in your/our rights then all people should thank him.

 

Some members are suggesting that no one should should criticise wrong decisions made by the council.

Or could it be that they are saying that we should never know about any wrong doings in the council?

I don't think therefore I see no problems.

Ask yourself would you have done the same thing as Wills?

Now ask youself why did you answer as you did.

If it was because you don't like him then shame on you.

He didn't cost us a penny.

Who decided to give Clark the money to make the problem go away.

Don't forget, the worms are still there.

Regards.

[Ghostrider]

Gosh, I see Daddy is onboard now:-

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/02/25/departed-chief-executives-father-mounts-robust-defence-of-his-son

 

His mutterings are hardly relevant. He will have only really heard, and have had his ears open to one side of the story, Clark jr's. His opinion is anything but unbiased, therefor without objective.

 

Heat....kitchen....get out of, is what I'd say to both of them. The chief official of a public body will come under just about ever kind of attack imaginable at some time or another, especially if folk believe they see a chink in their armour. Wear a thick skin, and deal with it.

[tlady]

and deal with it.

 

Preferably without threatening behaviour!

[Njugle]

His mutterings are hardly relevant. He will have only really heard, and have had his ears open to one side of the story, Clark jr's. His opinion is anything but unbiased, therefor without objective.

 

While there may be understandable evidence of his bias, the objective points he makes in the letter are indeed very relevant and the wider subjects he outlines are of ever-increasing gravity to Shetland at the current time.