Big Mouth Strikes Again.

[voxreasonable]

I find it ironic indeed, that before the dust has settled, Jonathan Wills is on his high horse again threatening to exact financial punishment on individual councillors who had the temerity to stand up to him and were simply doing their job.

 

Not ironic because if there had been a proper independent enquiry there's a good chance he would not have a leg to stand on but ironic because he is squabbling about 3 or 4 thousand pounds in legal costs (which of course is likely to cost more to collect) when nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room. I.e. the 250,000 pounds Jonathan cost the council because he found it impossible to keep his big mouth shut for a few weeks.

There are proper legal processes for sacking employees at the council just as there is at all UK councils and by sticking to this process Dave Clarke could have been let go with little more than a month's wages. However, Jonathan's personal vendetta against Dave in the UK press played right into Dave's lawyer's hands making normal procedures impossible. In short, Jonathan Mill's big mouth cost us all 250,000 pounds. Perhaps we should ask him to pay this bill? All in favour say aye.

[Guest Anonymous]

yay yay , hes a gobsihte

[Kavi Ugl]

There's a lot of truth in what you say and it just seems as if JW doesn't know when to stop digging or let go.....

 

Personally, I don't think DC was even given a chance in the job and technically he hadn't actually done anything that meritted "the sack".

 

His crime was to rock the left wing dominated, rudderless and sinking ship of the SIC by "removing" Willie Shannon.

 

What DC got hung out to dry for, the central government cuts will do......

[Spinner72]

It's good to see the "general public" getting more wise to the damage Wills has caused, especially to our purse. Not just in the CE saga lets remember.

 

As I have said before, if it wasn't costing the Shetland public so much money, it would be laughable.

 

I'm all for the "asking difficult questions" mindset, but the questions need to be sensible and relevant!

[Ghostrider]

In short, Jonathan Mill's big mouth cost us all 250,000 pounds. Perhaps we should ask him to pay this bill? All in favour say aye.

 

In short Clark should have been fought every inch of the way to make sure he didn't leave with a penny. Normally I loathe lawyers and everything they stand for, but for once I'd rather they'd pocketed the £500,000, or even £1 Million to ensure that Clark left with nothing, than have what's happened. I've said as much before on another thread I think.

 

Yes, there have been times Wills would have been very wise to have shutup, and there have been a whole lot more when it would have been to everyone's (unless Clark's) benefit that he chose his words far more carefully. He's somebody who you're never be quite sure whether he's more of an asset, or more of a liability. Some things he says need to be said, sometimes he gets obsessive to the point of absurdity. But on the other side, Clark's job performance was IMHO utterly abysmal, and he should not have profited from his inevitable departure in any way as a matter of principle.

 

Wills may well not have helped in keeping the size of the final bill down, but the real problem as I see it is the council "policy" of whenever strife arises, they go in to panic mode and start throwing money at it and sweeping it under the carpet to make it go away ASAP at any and all costs.

 

We are where we are through weak council leadership, and a council who are adhering to interpretations of some of the rules they are supposed to play by, which are no longer valid.

 

Its going to take a new council and a new chief to move ahead, the new chief is allegedly a work in progress, if the same could be said for the council it might be possible to have a little optimism. As it is we'll just keep wallowing in the mire until May 2012. It won't matter who they get as CE now, short of dynamite this lot will never be anything other than they are, and come 2012, if they last that long any CE will be more than ready to leave. So we'll be looking at a new council and chief again then anyway, so we might as well cut to the chase and get both now, forget the pissing it against a wall that the next two years will be if this council stays.

[tlady]

Where has this personal vendetta crap come from ??

 

The ex chief executive was unsuitable for the job !! he didn't have a clue about employment law, or working in the public sector.

 

The money he was awarded was scandalous! but it had nothing to do with Mr Wills .. pay-offs are the norm for these "big wigs"

 

I would far rather have someone who will shout and scream when they think something is wrong, rather than yes men/women who are silenced by threats from above !!

[Guest Anonymous]

shout n scream in a measured n calculated way tho , not like a meglomaniac on a self importance trip

[angelpie]

What do you mean big pay offs are the norm? He was in the job for five minutes. I am pretty certain he would have a standard contract for that post. I cant imagine Shetland gets to make up its own contracts. In which case, if he was not doing the job, was unsuitable, had lied about his qualifications or references, he could be got rid of pretty sharpish without any pay off.

[MJ]

Where has this personal vendetta crap come from ??

 

The ex chief executive was unsuitable for the job !! he didn't have a clue about employment law, or working in the public sector.

 

The money he was awarded was scandalous! but it had nothing to do with Mr Wills .. pay-offs are the norm for these "big wigs"

 

I would far rather have someone who will shout and scream when they think something is wrong, rather than yes men/women who are silenced by threats from above !!

What do you mean big pay offs are the norm? He was in the job for five minutes. I am pretty certain he would have a standard contract for that post. I cant imagine Shetland gets to make up its own contracts. In which case, if he was not doing the job, was unsuitable, had lied about his qualifications or references, he could be got rid of pretty sharpish without any pay off.

If Jonathan had kept his trap shut, then no one would have had to pay out any money. If your employee does something wrong you don't go running to the press. So glad he's not my problem, just don't know what possessed folk to vote him in again. He's just proved yet again he's not suitable for public office.

[angelpie]

Who is he and what does he actually do?

[Ghostrider]

One question which has never been addressed is, was there a "no fault" probationary period during which either side could terminate the CE's appointment?

 

If so, how long was it for, and if it was the standard 6 months, why wasn't it used? If there wasn't one, why wasn't there?

 

Those are all things that are down to the council, and in particular the leadership. Bottom line, there should have been a built in safeguard for both parties, on present evidence it would appear that either there wasn't one, or if there was it was woefully inadequate.

[MuckleJoannie]

Who is he and what does he actually do?

 

You can see Councillor Wills biography here

 

http://shetlopedia.com/Dr_Jonathan_Wills

[jz]

One question which has never been addressed is, was there a "no fault" probationary period during which either side could terminate the CE's appointment?

 

I think that the answer to this is "No".

 

From the http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/local/2010/sr_100506_shetland.pdf, which is a "report by the Controller of Audit to the Accounts Commission under Section 102(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973." - released on May 6th this year, which looked into issues surrounding Mr Clark's appointment and removal.

 

29. Although the council’s priorities were discussed as part of the interview process and some informal discussions took place, the incoming chief executive was not set clear personal objectives. There was no formal performance appraisal system in place.

 

30. The council contacted COSLA to seek advice about developing the organisation’s overall performance management arrangements and implementing an appraisal system for the chief executive, but this did not take place until the chief executive had been in post for over four months, by which time serious tensions between the chief executive and some members were already evident.

 

 

31. These are fundamental areas of good practice which any organisation should have in place. The absence of clear performance management processes was a factor in the events that unfolded between June 2009 and February 2010 when the chief executive left his post. The lack of performance management arrangements meant there was no framework for formally assessing the chief executive’s performance and holding him to account.

Had clear objectives been set and performance appraisal arrangements been in place, some of the issues which subsequently arose could have been avoided or at least mitigated.

[voxreasonable]

I believe the council were in the process of ending Dave Clark's brief employment with them using the very contractual clauses you mentioned just around the time that Jonathan first went to the press. By mounting a sustained and vicious public campaign against Dave, ensuring his career was damaged across the whole of the UK, it simply dragged the whole process out for longer and handed Dave's lawyers a compensation case on a plate. If Jonathan had followed advice and kept quiet, Dave would have been gone for the usual one months notice plus nice reference.

[JustMe]

MJ wrote

If Jonathan had kept his trap shut, then no one would have had to pay out any money. If your employee does something wrong you don't go running to the press. So glad he's not my problem, just don't know what possessed folk to vote him in again. He's just proved yet again he's not suitable for public office.

The question of his suitability for public office is up to those who get the chance to vote for or against him at the next election. Surely we need a few councillors who do not just do what an inner circle tell them to do and given the chance I would vote for him again.