Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Conflicts of interest...

The Minute of the Human Resource sub-Committee of 27 August 2009 was pushed through my letterbox last night (many thanks to whoever), and just what an eye-opener it was.....

19. The Chief Executive submitted a Report to enable the Sub-Committee to consider a request for retirement in the interest of efficiency of the service by employee OP. The Report detailed the terms of the request, the financial consequences of the request and provided details of how these financial consequences could be met.

The Sub-Committee adjourend at 2:50pm and re-convened at 4:00pm on Tuesday 1 September 2009 [the next day] when the following Members were found to be present.

Norman A MacDonald (Chairman)
Angus Campbell
Annie MacDonald
Norman M MacLeod

It was agree that employee OP be retired in the interests of the efficiency of the service with immediate effect subject to:

(a) thew agreement of employee OP to relinquish the right to pay in lieu of notice;
(b) no compensation payment being made other than in respect of accrued pension rights; and
(c) the agreement of employee OP to sign a Compromise Agreement consistent with the terms of the draft attached as Appendix 1 to the Report as amended to take account of the foregoing paragraphs (a) and (b)


Councillors may wish to ask
  • why a suspended employee was able to retire before the discipline process was completed?
  • just what the Compromise Agreement said? (any chance of a copy, please)
  • just who was covering their backside using public money to try to hide a problem?
  • why Councillors are still being kept in the dark about the complaint and the its subsequent handling?
  • where is the Audit & Scrutiny Committee in all of this?
Given that the Chair of the Committee and the Chief Executive's office were both intimately involved in directing and deciding upon the course of events that formed the basis of the original complaint, did neither think that there might just be the tinniest suggestion of a conflict of interest?


Anonymous said...

Any Trouble at the seat of Island Government and there they are:

Toad of Toad hall and the Lairdess of Lochs.

Anonymous said...

Why does the public purse invariably have to be allowed to cushion the exit of incompetent and corrupt public employees?

Has the comhairle become so self obsessed that it is unaware that it is there to serve the public, and not themselves?

Any wonder why the esteem in which many councillors and council officers are held in is extremely low. In the rough and tumble of the private sector there are no golden parachutes, and the bosses of the various island enterprises have to make hard choices.

At the moment the only choices which the comhairle appear to be considering are...

a) What colour of bucket in which to put its head.

b) Which hand starts the wringing process.

c) Machair sand or quarry sand for burying the head.

e) How much of a payout can they have as a payoff. (blacktop access roads to sundry relatives was an old favourite).

f) If an office bearer is caught indulging in what in the private world would be an instantly disnmissable offence - choose between gross incompetence and blatant corruption - can we give them a maximum benefit package to go quietly, and thereby avoid the public exposure of an embarrassing court case?

I can't remeber the name of the general who operated his army on the premise that now and again you had to shoot someone just to keep the others on their toes.

Maybe time for a very public execution in the white house? At least the rest of the incompetent buggers might just wake up and pay attention to the real world.