News / Wills slams Accounts Commission
A LERWICK councillor has denounced the critical report into Shetland Islands Council by local government watchdog the Accounts Commission as “ignorant”, “unfair” and “patronising”.
Jonathan Wills has written to Scottish finance secretary John Swinney with his robust response to the report, published last month following a two day hearing at Lerwick Town hall in June.
The move follows a letter from Mr Swinney to SIC convener Sandy Cluness on 7 September warning that he will soon be visiting Shetland to discuss the commission’s findings, that have left him “deeply concerned”.
The finance secretary writes: “I would strongly encourage your Council to accept the
findings in full and take immediate action to address the issues raised.
“Responsibility for meeting these challenges lies with the Council collectively; and it is essential that every elected Member applies themselves with both diligence and the expected standards of corporate leadership, governance and discipline.”
The Accounts Commission launched their inquiry in response to the spectacular breakdown of working relations at the SIC following the appointment of former chief executive David Clark and his subsequent departure after just nine months with a tax free pay off of almost £300,000.
The council has been given until mid November to respond to the report, but Dr Wills said that he was concerned Mr Swinney had only heard one side of the story and wanted to challenge the “rather obvious defects” of this “slipshod inquiry”.
The councillor accuses the “profoundly incurious” commission of failing to do their homework, tarring all councillors with “scattergun” smears and shying away from apportioning responsibility where it is due.
Responding in detail to each of the report’s 45 paragraphs and 13 recommendations, he says that blaming all councillors for the failures of the political leadership is “a collective insult” to those who protested against their conduct.
He says: “The problem in Shetland has not been tension, which can be a creative force, but the actions (or inaction) of some of our elected office-bearers and the behaviour of a very few senior officials, notably the former chief executive.”
He says it is unfair to blame all councillors for the way Mr Clark was recruited and managed.
“The blame for this obviously rests squarely with the responsible office-bearers, not with the other councillors, so it is incorrect and unfair to blame ‘the council’ as a whole.
“As usual the commission shies away from identifying those responsible and tries to blame us all. This is as ridiculous as if a back-bench SNP MP were to be held accountable for the actions of Messrs Cameron and Clegg.
“But mud sticks and the commission has knowingly and deliberately exposed all of us to public contempt and ridicule, when only a few of us merit it.”
He says the commission should look deeper into the reason why local councillors failed to comprehend the implications of their decision in February to pay Mr Clark £285,000 plus expenses to go.
“The conduct of the meeting of 19 February 2010 and the contents of the agreement amount to serious maladministration, not just ‘a failure of governance and decision making processes’ that ought to be apparent to a body as professionally qualified as the commission,” he says.
He accuses the commission of insinuating that he and other members had breached the councillors’ code of conduct, despite being cleared of any misconduct following “forensic examination” by the Standards Commission for Scotland.
He takes issue with “coded” criticism of SIC legal chief Jan Riise, saying: “If the commission has a specific criticism of an officer it should say what it is.”
He also staunchly defends head of finance Graham Johnston, who is accused of failing to provide adequate budget management information. “I sometimes disagree with (Mr Johnston) but he is a universally respected and valued member of staff and I’m annoyed and dismayed to find him pilloried in this manner,” he says.
Mr Clarks’ predecessor Morgan Goodlad also receives a mention in Dr Wills’ paper for his failure to create a clear job description for the post of assistant chief executive that was later deleted by Mr Clark.
“This was by no means the only senior post filled without advertisement or interview. To find out why, ask the last chief executive but one and the present convener. Or perhaps don’t ask, if you’re a member of this profoundly incurious commission.”
Dr Wills reserves his most rigorous arguments for his challenge to the grouping of the accounts of Shetland Charitable Trust with the council, which he says would be “a potentially fatal danger to the trust”.
The commission’s recommendations are largely condemned as “pious waffle”, and by this stage Dr Wills has clearly lost his patience.
Recommendation (j) states: “The council should establish rigorous processes to ensure that it can put its use of resources on a footing that is consistent with implementing and sustaining its financial strategy, and demonstrate that it can deliver services in a way which best value.”
Dr Wills responds: “…and we should no doubt develop more inclusive policies on motherhood, apple pie and reestit mutton…”
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider paying for membership to get additional features and services: -
- Remove non-local ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
