Treeplanter

I see we have now made "Private Eye"...."Rotten Boroughs".....a liitle article entitled "Dave Clark Fivers".

Good point Malcolm, it makes you wonder: 1) If his business appears to be so good so quickly then why has it cost the public purse some £0.5m to compensate the man for loss of future earnings. or 2) Heaven forbid, perhaps claims of the success of his consultancy business have been slighly embelished, as has been previously alledged in some quarters. Either way......something isn't quite right.

I understand the the champange corks have been popping in St Olaf Street tonight.......absolutely disgusting. The Convenor's "line should be drawn" under this entire Council....who employed Big Dave in the first place....and then are happy to pay out £500,000 of OUR money to get rid of him.....time they all also exited the Town Hall and submitted themselves to re-election...now. ( Just think how many much music tuition at £160 per year per student you could fund with £500,000 of OUR money......do the sum you 22 plonkers.....it works out at 3,125 student years....yes THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE ) and....yes...the celebrations in st Olaf Street are still continuing a pace...and will do for some time yet. ABSOLUTE DISGRACE..!!!!!!!!

Fleabee.......ehh..???!!!!.... The potential "loss" of his wife would apparantly be a consequence of his own actions....and nothing to do his performance / non perfoirmance as CE. The potential "loss" of his job would appear to have been initiated by himself...it is the CE who has instructed his solicitors to commence dialogue with the SIC. The potential "loss" of his reputation is a largely a consequence of his actions associated with both of the above.

Bringing this back to the CE job description, whilst acknowedging that this doesn't form a contract of employement, it is interseting to note that under "Person Specification - Essential", the following are included: - Astute Political Awareness - Responds Possitively to Criticism - Demonstrates Disretion and Trust - High Degress of Political Sensitivity Well then.......................

Agreed......put all the personal life stuff aside......however.....he's still underperformed in the job he was employed to do, and has made Shetland a laughing stock..... even before the "Sun" articles recent appearance. Time for him to move on, appoint a new CE, and hopefully start to repair the significant damage that has been inflicted on Shetland's reputation since June last year.

See he's made "The Sun" again today.

Get rid...now.....will be well worth it...whatever it costs.

Come back Morgan...all is forgiven.

Treeplanter says......save what little trees we have on Shetland....simply keep the SIC web site updated...for a change.......enhance it if required to message all the "good news". If it has to happen....please don't bring in highly paid consultants or recruit additional staff...perhaps the task could be included within the responsibilities of one of the existing Senior Management Team? In my experience any such publications are rapidly consigned to the bin...I can't for the life of me see why this one should be any different.

Facts now published are: (1) Amount borrowed = £860,000 / Amount Repaid = £951,000. This means that the Shetland Development Trust will have recovered ALL of it's original investment together with £91,000 of interest payments. (2) That a "significant proportion" of the previously much talked about "shortfall of £411,000" is, according to the Development Trust "resulting from compound penalty interest accrued since 2004. The councilor's lawyers have advised the penalty interest could not be enforceable against the company". (3) Regarding receipt of Hodge rental monies by Caroline Miller, the Development Trust state that there is "no basis for a conclusion of misappropriation, to the detriment of creditors as has been alleged through the media". Facts which have not yet been published, but perhaps should be, include: The number of people that Judane employed over the years? The amount of revenue the company put back into the Shetland economy? The extent to which the company promoted Shetland throughout the World? With this information perhaps a line could then be drawn under this whole matter, where in summary, the Developement Trust got ALL it's money back, plus £91K interest payments, and Shetland had a significant number of people employed in an international knitwear business over many years.

Classic....Mr Clark reckons he is the man to at last control the SIC's capital spending programme....however he is apparently quite prepared to ignore basic financial control processes whenever the mood takes him. Not the way to manage any business...far less a public authority spending OUR money.

Simple statement - Mr Clark's conspicuous absence from the Remembrance Day service has been noted.

A good turnout from the general public, precious few Councilors there...and the SIC Chief Executice no where to be seen.

Today's farcical events simply add further weight to what has become increasingly obvious during the past few weeks. The Convenor and the Chief Executive should do the honourable thing for the good of Shetland, the SIC and themselves, and resign....immediately. This debacle has gone on for far too long, the starting point should indeed be re-set, but without the key individuals who are clearly responsible for the sorry state of affairs this proud comminity now finds it's self in. It is time to move on in a possitive manner, however this will inevitably prove to be impossible with these individuals still in post.....has anything ever been so completely obvious?!

You are spot on with this one, Ghostwriter. This selective use of the rules to suit his own ends is yet another clear demonstration of Mr Clark's intention to do what he wants when he wants and heaven help any person, organisation or procedure that gets in his way. This might all be well and good in the cut and thrust of "big business", but will surely (hopefully ) prove to be unsustainable within local government in a small closely knit community such as Shetland.

What exactly will the annual accounts show me that can indicate that Mr Clark is not qualified for this role? I may be being naive but I thought that all they would show me were the financial returns for one particular company In summary: This publically available informations shows that as at 31 March 2008 the company had a net worth £3,444. The company owed third party creditors £49,628. Mr Clark owed the company £40,701.

Quite - which could well explain why this allegedly "high flyer" was seemingly immediately available to cease all activities associated with his own company in order to take up paid employment in the Shetland Isles.

Clarified, to some extent, in this week's "Shetland Times" - page 6 - "Caroline Miller who has family involvement with Mr Clark".