WLDC should serve the people

EDITOR – My apologies for writing again so soon.

With reference to the demise of WLDCs Director of Resources; I seem to remember having had a letter published in your pages concerning the appointment when it was to be made the fundamental thrust of that letter having been, as I recall, that the council’s reason for the appointment viz. that they “needed a Section 151 officer”, was not quite correct as a Section 151 Officer is a requirement under the Local Government Act and one would presume that WLDC had not been operating without one so why did we need two?

That notwithstanding I suggested, I believe, that if the bloke did the business we had a good deal and if he didn’t we had been sold a pup. We can all now draw our own conclusions.

From the information provided in your front page report Rasen Mail May 2 2012 four questions spring to mind.

If the alleged gross misconduct were found to have been untrue why did the incumbent leave?

If he left of his own free will why did WLDC make a pay off as suggested in your report?

If the alleged gross misconduct were found to have been true then under UK Employment laws the transgressor may be paid up to the minute and shown the exit without further recompense; so why did WLDC make a pay off as suggested your report?

If the work can now being spread around among other council officers, as reported, why was the appointment necessary in the first place? Maybe WLDC should re-examine their raison d’etre; i.e. to serve the community not the other way around.

Under the circumstances WLDC’s Corporate Mission Statement would seem somewhat droll and perhaps in need of revision.

Peter Street

Mallowfield, Middle Rasen