Jump to content

Ex Chief Exec - Dave Clark


Twerto
 Share

Recommended Posts

loved it but my language fails me at points.

 

so the saga goes on.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/10/20/wills-reported-to-standards-commission-after-making-statement-about-chief-executive

 

should mr clark not have stepped aside from this complaint. he can moan about a council member but it seems that he does the same. police and this so he is not after peace.

 

the other council members should also think about making complaints to the standards folks.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/09/26/three-councillors-under-investigation-over-code-of-conduct-complaints

 

so if they want this to go away is this the best way to do it. personally i think not. it does seem that mr clark does not like opposition.

 

using the police and other local government complaint systems for what is a personal dislike is an abuse of power by both lots.

 

how much is this costing us by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No surprise here, as the council followed procedure from the outset.

 

Long overdue, but this may finally bring Cllr Wills into line and stop any more money being wasted due to his shenanigans.

 

He could only hide behind the "buddy system" for so long. If you start making official complints you need to stick to the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

loved it but my language fails me at points.

 

so the saga goes on.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/10/20/wills-reported-to-standards-commission-after-making-statement-about-chief-executive

 

should mr clark not have stepped aside from this complaint. he can moan about a council member but it seems that he does the same. police and this so he is not after peace.

 

the other council members should also think about making complaints to the standards folks.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/09/26/three-councillors-under-investigation-over-code-of-conduct-complaints

 

so if they want this to go away is this the best way to do it. personally i think not. it does seem that mr clark does not like opposition.

 

using the police and other local government complaint systems for what is a personal dislike is an abuse of power by both lots.

 

how much is this costing us by the way.

 

Damn fools....Wills' "Statement" to the press immediately after the decision on Clark was announced was bait, and they've all swallowed it hook line and sinker. :roll:

 

There's a serious need for all of the players who's names are now associated with this farce, to have their collective heads dinged together for as long as it takes to knock some sense in to them.

 

JHC!!!!....These folk are *supposed* to be the "elders" and leaders of the rest of us.....I've seen more common sense and decorum displayed by twa auld Shetlan rams peinin it een anidder head ta head it da bak idda hill daek.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinner72 you appear to have a particular gripe re Wills past 'performance' - I am getting the impression it is due to his journalistic activites of the past. How do you work out that Wills has breached any matters of procedure?

 

For someone who professes not to dislike either party you seem to have a jaundiced view of Wills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone should do what my "Ol Mum" used to do when two of us were determined not to give in and BANG their heads together..

 

If this scenario was taking place in the nursery it would have been stopped a long time ago....

 

I can only hope that Mr Clarks collegues will eventually realise that he is trying to play at "Big Brother" and will eventually see sense..

The powers that be keep talling us that there is no money in the coffers for such mundane things as upgrading existing housing stock to the national standard....Of course there,s none cause it,s all being sqandered of these stupid games that are being played with our Council Taxes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinner72 you appear to have a particular gripe re Wills past 'performance' - I am getting the impression it is due to his journalistic activites of the past. How do you work out that Wills has breached any matters of procedure?

 

For someone who professes not to dislike either party you seem to have a jaundiced view of Wills.

 

It is simply a realistic view, and entirely based on his documented performance since election to council. The facts are all there in black and white. Nobody can keep on ignoring their contractual obligations regarding their post with such regularity and publicity without expecting some kind of retribution.

 

My "gripe", if any, is the way so many people seem be ignoring how much all the delays etc, not to mention this ongoing situation, is costing. Both in direct financial terms and for Shetlands reputation on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you work out that Wills has breached any matters of procedure?

 

In all of the problems over recent months, I imagine the matters of procedure which Mr Wills could be judged as having breached are those concerning the Councillors Code of Conduct:

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/04/14492/2559

 

In particular Annex C contains a section headed "Public Comment", where it states that "Councillors should not raise matters relating to the conduct or capability of employees in public".

 

No-one would argue that if Mr Wills has legitimate concerns he should not follow them up, but this would indicate that he has quite definitely gone the wrong way about it, and has indeed breached the Code on many occasions.

 

To someone following the whole business from a distance, his letters and statements can sometimes appear somewhat hysterical and tabloid in nature. While there may sometimes be a kernel of truth in what he says, real pursuit of truth would probably be better served by a more measured approach. (Although admittedly they would not then be such fun to read, and would not stir up such a fuss!)

 

I would be surprised if the Council leadership had not tried to steer him towards this type of course during the last few months, but may have felt forced to this type of formal action if he would not be persuaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "gripe", if any, is the way so many people seem be ignoring how much all the delays etc, not to mention this ongoing situation, is costing. Both in direct financial terms and for Shetlands reputation on so many levels.

 

 

Not sure how Dr Wills stance is damaging Shetlands reputation. I think the chief exec has a better chance of doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Long overdue, but this may finally bring Cllr Wills into line and stop any more money being wasted due to his shenanigans.

 

 

The rest of the council is whiter than white then.

How about the Norröna fiasco the one and only One councillor who got money in his own pocket while the money invested is gone. O! the bridge fiasco millions lost on consultant fees and a lawsuit from the LHA for over 5 million pounds. The Anderson High School all the money lost on that as well, and the silly Marilee project and wind farm. Mr. Cluness and Co should not throw mud when there own standards are questionable at best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is not the problem that Dr Willis has got such a gigantic ego thats almost impossible to feed. Where ever he has been in the past it seems to kick off. If I was a constituent I'd want somebody who was keen to represent me properly (as was the case with his school issue) rather than spending the council's time (and the folk's money) on his personal crusading.

Either Dr Willis has to accept he's lost this one, wrightly or wrongly, or there is no point in him continuing on the council wasting valuable resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business with the telephone was never going to be proven one way or the another though. The Investigating Officers should have ensured that both parties could interview each other if that was going to be permitted and not be one-sided. That said, Doc should have complained at the outset.

 

I don't know about his past history. However, I'm trying for the life of me to remember an old saying about how somebody complained about something and nobody believed them - something like and all those around remained quiet.

 

Granted, Doc should not have broken Council procedures (coughs - allegedly). However, sometimes if something really did happen and you believe in your principles, you will be willing to take the consequences and if he is right, then only time will tell.

 

Mind you, I bet if any other Council employee had been drinking on the premises, they wouldn't have got off so lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In particular Annex C contains a section headed "Public Comment", where it states that "Councillors should not raise matters relating to the conduct or capability of employees in public".

 

If that line is all Clark, Cluness, Simpson and whoever else who signed the complaint against Wills has, they're depending to a brocken bowe....What the "official" outcome is remains to be seen, but in taking this road Clark has labelled himself in teh public's eye as a chameleon who will adopt whatever guise necessary to get the heat off himself.

 

When Clark was called on drinking in his office, he relied (as I understood it) on pleading that he was something more than "just an employee" to get away with it, ie. his status was such that behaving in such a way on occasion went with the territory. Sure as hell had someone on the essy kert, washing dishes in a school canteen, or looking after old folk somewhere etc been called on drinking on the job, they'd have had no comeback and been out of a job. Clark kept his, so in doing so he had to claim some ground at least slightly elevated above "just an employee".

 

However, when Wills calls him on allegedly issuing threats of violence by phone, then Clark is all too happy to suddenly hide behind a "just an employee" status to file a retalitory complaint.

 

Talk about double standards and hypocracy, the boy Clark needs to decide where he stands and what rules apply to him, or at least the council needs to decide on Clark's status and what rules apply to him, and enforce them. Being allowed to escape the repocussions of one incident by jumping over rules, but defending onself by hiding tightly behind the same rules to seek shelter from a following incident is not on. Either his position grants him certain privileges not applicable to other lower ranking employees, and with it the flip side of less protections from criticism, accusations etc, or it doesn't and he gets hung for the same indescretions as anyone else, but enjoys the full protection from external and public attack all other employees do.

 

Right now he's having his cake and eating it, picking and choosing which rules apply to him and which don't. That's just taking the piss all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you on that analysis Ghostrider.

 

Spinner72, I also accept what you are saying about procedure and standards - however the good Doctor is a highly agrieved party and has clearly shown his feelings very publicly, as you know he is prone to do. I would suggesat he was very right to stand up and oppose the decisiion to proceed with the AHS at th Knab, but not sure what other waste of resources you are talking about.

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...