Ghostrider Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 ^^ On January 7th 1999 Nick Reiter's employment as CE was terminated following a meeting of the full SIC. Shand Smith was Convenor, Flaws tabled the motion for terminating Reiter's employment. May 1999 elections: Dunrossness: Gordon G. Mitchell Independent 268 Magnus L. Flaws Independent 222 Lerwick Breiwick: Cecil B. Eunson Independent 231Lewis Shand Smith Independent 215 They both may well have been voted out anyway, that we can never know, but even so the result at the ballot box can hardly be said to have been supportive of their track record up to that time. Certainly Shand Smith was up against a seasoned veteran, but for a sitting Convenor to be voted out is a bit like a national political party leader being voted out even though their party won the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorfus chucklepants Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Lerwick Breiwick: Cecil B. Eunson Independent 231 Lewis Shand Smith Independent 215 They both may well have been voted out anyway, that we can never know, but even so the result at the ballot box can hardly be said to have been supportive of their track record up to that time. Certainly Shand Smith was up against a seasoned veteran, but for a sitting Convenor to be voted out is a bit like a national political party leader being voted out even though their party won the election. What you also have to remember was that this election followed ward boundary changes. Eunson had previously been elected in Lk Breiwick and Smith in LK Twageos. The Breiwick ward they both stood in was a new ward made up of bits of the old two so both ( or neither) were sitting members. Very hard to draw any conclusion about a Reiter effect and can anyone remember if Eunson voted to get rid of Reiter as well? On the auditors report itself, if it made any hard hitting recommendations or named 'guilty' parties then I'm sure that Shetland News would have splashed on that. As they didn't, it makes me suspect that the report will be a load of waffle that satisfies no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bresail Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 “This use of the media to further particular viewpoints is not unique to the Shetland Islands, but its extent has had a negative impact on the council’s ability to conduct business effectively, on the reputation of the council and on working relationships,†"I wonder who audit Scotland could be referring to?" It seems that there has been a leak from Audit Scotland who made the statement above, about a leak from the Shetland Council.How ridiculous!An aspersive comment has already been made, also above, pointing at Jonathan Wills. This is without having access to the full report.In another post on this forum someone asked why people hide behind pseudonyms. It is because they are scared and do not have the courage of their convictions and that one day they may need the help of the person that they can, "safely," abuse.This is not aimed at all the pseudonyms here, just the abusive ones that feel that they need to hide.Jock, my dog is the one that has an owner called Rex, he has nothing to hide. So he has outed me. [/b] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 As Brian so eloquently states, "here we go again". And why would that be? Because the SIC is incapable of identifying and remedying it's past failings? Because the SIC continually displays it's incompetence and it's inability to comply with both it's own internal processes and those legislated by law? That the elected body is so totally unable to organise and manage it's own activites, that it spends more money trying to decide what to do, than it actually does doing them? That the SIC spends vast sums on consultants rather than tasking it's own responsible employees to perform the work they were hired to do - so the blame can be shifted outside the organisation should things go wrong? That the inability of the leadership of the SIC to manage their activities in a reasonable manner has resulted in the loss of millions of pounds of cash, resources, and utterly indefencible legal battles? That the cabal controlling the SIC is impervious to questioning, public responsibility and accountability for the ridiculous decisions they make, and the fiscal impact of those decisions? That the charitable trust has been determined as operating outside of the law, and that the same clique controlling the SIC, is driving the decision to test that determination in a court of law? That the recruiting and selection of what some might determine to be a poor choice of Chief Executive, led to the same selection committee that hired him, to offer a £500,000 pay out at the expense of the people of Shetland? That the structure and management of the SIC, in both elected and executive roles is totally incapable of managing and operating to a defined and approved budget? So, here we do again. And why would that be again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningright Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 Here we go again ... for someone who has been termed a wordsmith in the past, your certainly economical with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jz Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 It seems that there has been a leak from Audit Scotland who made the statement above, about a leak from the Shetland Council.How ridiculous! Although I can't be certain, it is likely the source of the leak will have been a person that has been given the draft report to comment on prior to publication. Audit Scotland would not gain by leaking the report. JZ, happy to hide behind my pseudonym. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bresail Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 "Although I can't be certain, it is likely the source of the leak will have been a person that has been given the draft report to comment on prior to publication. Audit Scotland would not gain by leaking the report."So speculation, is pointless and the leaker of this report must be known!Elementary my dear jz.Regards,Rex owner of Jock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 Without the leaks were would not know stuff we deserve to know and it should not be kept in reports that are ment for the eyes of a small cabal, who want to cover things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 Without the leaks were would not know stuff we deserve to know and it should not be kept in reports that are ment for the eyes of a small cabal, who want to cover things up. And that I think sums up the very crux of the issue, Styles. The same people that created every part of the problem from start to finish, determined the exit strategy and held all the information, are still there. They are also in sole possession of all the facts and are intent on ensuring that the very people they were elected to serve, are deprived of any damning facts that might incriminate them themselves. The report is going to criticise precisely the same participants that hired and fired the Chief Executive and still control the elected body at the SIC - and there is absolutely NO accountability or redress for them. The leadership of the SIC have built themselves an insular defence system that is impenetrable by the electorate or anyone else, and can only be changed at the whim of the other councillors - there is no public recall or mechanism to depose a dictator who rises to the top of the banana republic. It is like Mugabe, Chavez or Castro; only it is in our back yard. This current regime is neither prepared to resign, or to be driven out by the majority of the councillors who seem to simply go with the flow. The vast majority of councillors certainly appear to do very little independent thinking for themselves, and they will surely sink at the next election as the facts arise. Facts, which incidentally, have thus far all supported the popular public perception of what was going on. The councillors that have publicly stood up to this ludicrous outrage, are well known and should be the foundation of a platform for change at the next election. So keep up the leaks. Put everything you can into the public domain and let the facts embarrass those who are so determined that they should not be seen by those who elected them and whom they are elected to serve. The SIC seems to have completely lost the concept that it's SOLE purpose is to SERVE the people of Shetland, and the sooner that focus is returned, the greater the potential for a structured and managed strategy for the benefit of all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 1, 2010 Report Share Posted May 1, 2010 ^^ Not only does another relection have to identify capable people to vote in, it really needs to find a way to identify capable people that won't be "institutionalised" by the "system" once they're there. Finding the former is one thing, finding the latter is something completely different. Time and again we've seen apparently capable people suddenly start toeing the SIC "party line" short after beig elected, or then apparently become mute whenever they attended council meetings. Some method needs to be devised to better gauge who will remain independent thinkers and doers once they get in. Yes, the current mob has two or three loose cannons, I'm not saying they always say or do the right things, but at least by rattling cages in passing they stop things becoming totally bogged down in the mire that they would otherwise be. There are two or three more who try to be loose cannons, and make the right noises occasionally, but when it comes to the crunch they seem to lose it and go quiet, the rest seem to just hang around holding on to a rubber stamp and passing whatever lands in front of them like someone on the Post Office counter with letters. The divisions need to be turned on their head, its always going to be difficult to avoid "rubber stampers" entirely, but they need to be in a minority, not majority. As a former Convener of the ZCC is alleged to have said off the record, many moons ago, something along the lines of: "You needna care whit da wise man is sayin it a cooncil meetin, whin da rest will only lisin ta da fuil". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted May 2, 2010 Report Share Posted May 2, 2010 Origionally before clark got picked it was ment to be a small group of councillers who would decide on it, but in their wisdom the rest got upity and decided they would all take part in decideing the next cheif executive (we have never been told who voted for what). I was disgusted when i heard on the radio a few months back that they have decided now that a small group of councillers will pick the next one as it "means they will pay more attention" what da hell were they all doing last time! Plus what does Mr Shannon do but drain our cash as they dont know where to put him but make up a old job description thatmeans he can drain as much money as he does now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bresail Posted May 2, 2010 Report Share Posted May 2, 2010 "Without the leaks were would not know stuff we deserve to know and it should not be kept in reports that are ment for the eyes of a small cabal, who want to cover things up."Well put Styles and so true!Yet we still have people here who wish to clobber the councillors who they suspect of the leaks.Whoever is leaking the info are doing us a service this is not true of some of the other councillors.What is the problem with having a truthful and open council?We have a right to know what the people that we employ to run our council are doing with our monies and what they intend to do for Shetland. "Zola's true crime has been in daring to rise to defend the truth and civil liberty ... [and] for that courageous defense of the primordial rights of the citizen, he will be honored wherever men have souls that are free ..."[/i]London Times. Alons citoyenne shetlandaise. Regards,Rex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jz Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 The latest on this sad, ongoing saga. http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2010/May/news/Clark%20slams%20Audit%20Scotland%20draft%20report.htm I'll refrain from commenting directly, but instead reprint two parts of the article. After Mr Clark left office, Mr Carmichael said that there needed to be a change of culture at the SIC and at no time had the council been held in such low regard by the local community. When Shetland News approached Mr Clark after the report was leaked he was abusive, saying he did not speak to “scum journalistsâ€. He did not issue his statement directly to Shetland News, who obtained a copy through other channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marooned in Maywick Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 ...levels of mistrust within the council had plummeted... That's gotta be a good thing...right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainlander Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Well spotted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.