Of Misstatements and gagging.

Gill Dixon, she who asked Oliver like for more, but more money in her case, has gone.

The press statement eulogises her, as is common with public services, however good or bad the departed one is, with such emollient phrases as:

“There has been a step change in the delivery of affordable homes across the district.”

There certainly has, and one noted by the Audit Commission who said how bad it was, and instructed CDC to improve in that area!

Some step change!

The council used to have over 1500 council houses which it virtually gave away to Craven Housing, who stated that they would build 20 affordable homes per year, but instead of the 100 or so we should now have, we don't have even half of that number!

In addition Craven Housing has taken the residents’ community centre and washeteria on Newmarket Street to make new offices for itself, perhaps the ever so Craven council will allow it to build a new community centre on the adjacent green?

What else is in this oily congratulatory blurb?

“A new civic centre on Gargrave Road which will provide high quality services to Craven residents”

Really?

Moving the staff to what was a protected greenfield site with insufficient parking, despite development of that site being against the wishes of virtually all, will give us high quality services?

Perhaps it will improve the bad staff absence record also mentioned in the dispatches of the Audit Commission?

How bad?

Councils are not noted for having good sickness records, but even so CDC found itself in the worst quarter of all councils – now that’s bad!

Out of 6 points in praise of the ex chief executive, 5 are promises for the future; still that does leave one thing she has achieved:

“Major improvements in connectivity through the Martini projects”

Well, if that doesn’t get the average struggling taxpayer dancing in the streets, what could?

Assuming that it is still the beloved Leonard Rossiter involved in the Martini projects that is.

The truth of the matter is this:

Gill Dixon presided over a massive increase in staff, almost 25% in her first few years. This led in turn to massive wages bills, all documented in earlier Paakwa reports.

Somehow she has managed to get through no fewer than 3 Directors of Finance in as many years, leading to the latest report from the Audit Commission stating:

Financial Reporting - The quality of the financial statements and supporting working papers had deteriorated since the previous year, and decreased in score from a 3, consistently above minimum requirements, to a 1, below minimum requirements.

This is a consequence of the material misstatements we identified in your accounts.

Paakwa is not sure what a ‘material misstatement’ is.

Is it like being ‘economical with the truth?’

Or is it what plain talking folk would call lies?

And now to the real message.

Craven district council, the one who boasts about its ‘openness and transparency’ has entered into an agreement with Dixon on this ‘mutual termination of contract.’

The new leader has issued letters informing staff and councillors that there is a confidentiality (gagging) clause in this agreement, and has issued the following guidance from the head of legal services.

“It is really important that Members (councillors) respect the confidentiality of information and knowledge that they have come across or know about in connection with any aspect of the management issues raised with them in March or since, or the subsequent initial investigation. Effectively I am asking you not to make publish or issue any public statements that may be considered detrimental or derogatory to Gill Dixon’s employment with the council, or that relate to the mutual termination of her employment. In addition, it is important that the same principles are applied to current and former directors, or any other employees in connection with these issues.”

What the above appears to state is that there has been or still is, an investigation concerning management issues and Gill Dixon. Worse, it seems to be instructing councillors, those whose first responsibility is to their electorate, and not some ex-chief executive or new leader of the council, that they have to keep quiet about what has been going on!

Is this a council, or a gulag?

Paakwa has asked the following questions under Freedom of Information*:

I note that Gill Dixon has mutually agreed to terminate her contract of employment, giving rise to a few queries:

What, if any, severance pay was awarded at cost to the taxpayers?

What were the management issues raised, and the subsequent initial investigation?

Was any determination made, and if not why not?

It has been stated that the council has entered into an agreement containing a confidentiality clause with Gill Dixon, is this correct?

If so, by whose authority, if not that of full council, was such an undertaking given, and by what authority does a minority of councillors have that right?

Have all elected members been made aware of the above points?

I am sure that you can see the public interest in the above questions, the public purse is always a matter of concern to hard pressed taxpayers.

Whilst not suggesting for one moment that Gill Dixon left after a very poor Audit Commission report or after some investigation concerning her, none the less it would be, in our opinion, a travesty if she were to conclude a mutually agreed termination of contract by costing taxpayers say a 6 figure sum, and the public must be assured that such is not the case.

Should answers be forthcoming from this open and transparent council, then Paakwa will of course reveal them.

Here’s hoping that any answers will be clear and honest, and not material misstatements, meanwhile Paakwa is away to dance a froggy jig in joy at the major improvements in connectivity through the Martini project.

*For those who wonder exactly what Paakwa is getting at, it's this:

If the chief executive wanted to leave, then what reasons can there be for paying out any money, as it would have been her choice. Indeed the council should be paid for having to lose a competent chief executive.

Conversely had the council wanted the chief executive to leave, (commonly called 'sacking' in private industry) then there must be reasons for that, and those reasons should be explained to taxpayers, especially if taxpayers' money has been used.

At the moment all we know is that the chief executive has left, and that this open and transparent council has put a 'gagging clause' on councillors and council staff, possibly without even asking councillors if they agree with such a step.

Such behaviour does not smack of democracy.