THE Chair of the Scottish Police Association has been accused of misleading MSPs over the resignation of one his board members.
Andrew Flanagan, the chief of the Police Scotland watchdog, told the Scottish Parliament’s public audit and post-legislative scrutiny committee, that Moi Ali had not given him advance warning that she was going to dissent at a meeting of the board.
The watchdog chief said she should have let him know in advance as “a professional courtesy.
But Ali took to Twitter to say she would be writing to MSPs to “correct info given by Andrew Flanagan re openness, transparency and my resignation.”
She then added: “I DID tell the Chair I would raise concerns in the public Board. His account at @SP_PAPLS is incorrect.”
The SPA, the oversight body for Police Scotland, has been the subject of criticism in recent months over alleged lack of transparency. Papers for public meetings were previously published days in advance, but are now often released just hours before.
A new “governance framework” also proposed that committees should be held in private.
At the December meeting of the SPA, Ali asked for her opposition to both be made clear in the official minute.
In a letter to Ali, Flanagan suggested she quit the SPA, saying it was normal for “individual board members who wish to share public disagreement" to "consider resigning".
Ali’s resignation is being investigated by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland. Meanwhile, the committee also heard that an accountant brought in from a private firm is pocketing £950 a day to deal with the SPA as they couldn’t find a suitable candidate in the public sector.
SPA chief executive John Foley told MSPs: “It was necessary to bring on board a senior finance person with appropriate skills. I took the action to go around on a trawl around the public sector to see if anyone with seniority and experience was available to do this. There was no availability. I then had to go to the private sector.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here