You report (February 13) that Councillor Grant Thoms is to be investigated by Harper MacLeod on behalf of Glasgow Housing Association (GHA). Will this result in another expulsion from Granite House? As someone who has previously been involved in one of these investigations, albiet marginally, please let me explain how it may unfold.
Hiring Harper MacLeod will, as Steven Purcell, leader of Glasgow City Council, points out, cost many thousands of pounds - perhaps a dozen central heating systems or new roofs. Harper MacLeod's Rod McKenzie will preside over the proceedings, painstakingly addressing every scrap of evidence which may point towards a breach of GHA's code of conduct.
Meantime, the accused might be given a pencil and pad of paper from GHA, if he's lucky, prior to his possible explusion. GHA won't be paying for a big law firm to represent Mr Thoms, so there will be no equality of arms. But why should anyone be setting up an expensive court martial in the first place? Has a crime been committed? GHA has a large in-house complement of solicitors, so if it requires advice, why does it need to bring in Mr McKenzie and his team?
Senior officers should not be dictating to democratically-elected board members.
Two things need to be done if we are to put GHA and second-stage transfer back on track. First, Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon should use her powers to make a number of statutory appointees to the board of GHA. I would suggest experienced housing association committee members and directors with a good track record in their communities.
Secondly, the Scottish Government must add GHA to Schedule One of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. There is cross-party support for this and it could be done quickly. If GHA were subject to FOI, ridiculous investigations into alleged "leaking of data" would become meaningless, as anyone in Glasgow would be able access this information as a matter of open and transparent governance.
Mike Dailly, Principal solicitor, Govan Law Centre, 47 Burleigh Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article