Time to do the right thing

You have to ask is there a need for such an inquiry and other matters too have to be considered such as the costs involved etc. Well let's look at a few facts.

The cost of an inquiry, we are told, would be around £4,000 (that's less than a month's pay for some senior council officers) and I don't think that many could legitimately baulk at the cost given the wanton profligacy we have seen with Lancaster's public purse in recent years.

Some have argued that the inquiry could turn into a witch-hunt which would seek to apportion blame on the people responsible for compiling such a poor case which ended up wasting public funds on a tribunal, caused unnecessary grief and suffering to an officer with a previously unblemished record and making the council look like a right shambles. Let's get this straight from the off: this is not a disciplinary inquiry.

Now it could well be that during the course of a perfectly legitimate investigation into the council's case, described by the tribunal chairman (a barrister, by the way) as procedurally and substantively unfair, that certain elements in the compiling of the council's case warrant further investigation - if they do then so be it; those who did nothing wrong have nothing to fear. An inquiry would go a long way to easing public concern over the lack of openness and accountability at the town hall - it would show the tax-payers that city bosses have nothing to hide and that the council was confident enough in its expertise and procedures to be able to withstand closer scrutiny than the cursory review of procedures into this affair carried out by Cllr Ian Barker and Stanley Henig provided. In short it might restore some public belief.

By now you are probably saying fine, enough! Let's get on with it! What's the problem? Now there's the rub.

You see not everybody is so keen on having an inquiry. Certain senior officers for a start are reportedly unhappy about it and so are a number of councillors. Why? God knows, but what is known is that a number of attempts have been made to scupper proceedings and there's been some despicable behaviour exhibited by at least one anonymous contributor.

Labour have stood against the idea as have the Lib Dems - now a cynic might say it's not hard to guess why Labour are against the inquiry but they treated the public's call for town hall accountability with derision and they got their comeuppance at the last election. Cllr Pat Quinton, speaking for the Lib Dems, claims she is happy with the internal review of procedures undertaken by the council after the case against Christley collapsed... well good for her, what about the rest of us? Maybe we too should be allowed to see fully how competently our public servants are operating. Do you not think that might be a little fairer councillor?

The Tories were keeping their powder dry but now are reported to be seeing the sense in holding an inquiry not least because it is the decent thing to do. Greens and Independents are all for an inquiry and with good reason. They have clearly had a bellyfull of the secretive nature of the way these things tend to go and want it all out on the table and surely that could only benefit the council in the long run. Christley is at the moment suing the authority for a six-figure sum if there is anything at all in the files that could strengthen the council's case and limit the public pay-out then we need to know about it now. Conversely if there are any skeletons lurking in the cupboard it would help councillors to know about them before they get embroiled in costly and protracted legal wrangling as has happened in the past and to our cost. Also any council employee needs to be sure that the procedures operating at the town hall are totally fair and they will be afforded the appropriate protection while working for the authority.

They need to know that they will not be unfairly dismissed as Christley was.

Mr Christley I'm sure has his detractors but I know also that many speak very highly of him with genuine warmth and affection either way it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that we do not end up throwing public money away again and it is public money. Some councillors would have you believe that lots of what they do is all frightfully confidential and that either the insurers or contingency funds are to be used to pay for this and other bloomers - complete tosh. It is your money not theirs and they ought to damn well be accountable about how they are spending it. So the inquiry looks likely to go ahead and so it should - those who object to it have demonstrated no legitimate reasons for doing so. The council owes it to Mr Christley, it owes it to current town hall workers and most of all it owes it to the public who have bankrolled the whole operation from day one. NEXT week city councillors will debate whether or not to hold an inquiry into the sacking of former tourism chief David Christley. Mr Christley, as readers will probably be aware, was unfairly dismissed by the council after he was accused of bullying and harassment and he has requested that members review the way his dismissal was handled.

You have to ask is there a need for such an inquiry and other matters too have to be considered such as the costs involved etc. Well let's look at a few facts.

The cost of an inquiry, we are told, would be around £4,000 (that's less than a month's pay for some senior council officers) and I don't think that many could legitimately baulk at the cost given the wanton profligacy we have seen with Lancaster's public purse in recent years.

Some have argued that the inquiry could turn into a witch-hunt which would seek to apportion blame on the people responsible for compiling such a poor case which ended up wasting public funds on a tribunal, caused unnecessary grief and suffering to an officer with a previously unblemished record and making the council look like a right shambles. Let's get this straight from the off: this is not a disciplinary inquiry.

Now it could well be that during the course of a perfectly legitimate investigation into the council's case, described by the tribunal chairman (a barrister, by the way) as procedurally and substantively unfair, that certain elements in the compiling of the council's case warrant further investigation - if they do then so be it; those who did nothing wrong have nothing to fear.

An inquiry would go a long way to easing public concern over the lack of openness and accountability at the town hall - it would show the tax-payers that city bosses have nothing to hide and that the council was confident enough in its expertise and procedures to be able to withstand closer scrutiny than the cursory review of procedures into this affair carried out by Cllr Ian Barker and Stanley Henig provided. In short it might restore some public belief.

By now you are probably saying fine, enough! Let's get on with it! What's the problem? Now there's the rub.

You see not everybody is so keen on having an inquiry. Certain senior officers for a start are reportedly unhappy about it and so are a number of councillors. Why? God knows, but what is known is that a number of attempts have been made to scupper proceedings and there's been some despicable behaviour exhibited by at least one anonymous contributor.

Labour have stood against the idea as have the Lib Dems - now a cynic might say it's not hard to guess why Labour are against the inquiry but they treated the public's call for town hall accountability with derision and they got their comeuppance at the last election. Cllr Pat Quinton, speaking for the Lib Dems, claims she is happy with the internal review of procedures undertaken by the council after the case against Christley collapsed... well good for her, what about the rest of us? Maybe we too should be allowed to see fully how competently our public servants are operating. Do you not think that might be a little fairer councillor? The Tories were keeping their powder dry but now are reported to be seeing the sense in holding an inquiry not least because it is the decent thing to do. Greens and Independents are all for an inquiry and with good reason. They have clearly had a bellyfull of the secretive nature of the way these things tend to go and want it all out on the table and surely that could only benefit the council in the long run. Christley is at the moment suing the authority for a six-figure sum if there is anything at all in the files that could strengthen the council's case and limit the public pay-out then we need to know about it now. Conversely if there are any skeletons lurking in the cupboard it would help councillors to know about them before they get embroiled in costly and protracted legal wrangling as has happened in the past and to our cost. Also any council employee needs to be sure that the procedures operating at the town hall are totally fair and they will be afforded the appropriate protection while working for the authority.

They need to know that they will not be unfairly dismissed as Christley was.

Mr Christley I'm sure has his detractors but I know also that many speak very highly of him with genuine warmth and affection either way it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that we do not end up throwing public money away again and it is public money. Some councillors would have you believe that lots of what they do is all frightfully confidential and that either the insurers or contingency funds are to be used to pay for this and other bloomers - complete tosh. It is your money not theirs and they ought to damn well be accountable about how they are spending it.

So the inquiry looks likely to go ahead and so it should - those who object to it have demonstrated no legitimate reasons for doing so. The council owes it to Mr Christley, it owes it to current town hall workers and most of all it owes it to the public who have bankrolled the whole operation from day one.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.