Last week after all that malarkey with Kent council paying out big sums to former employee Adam Wilkinson, the thought occurred even in the somewhat exceptional world of Kent council paying out all large sums of dosh, for the sheer hell of it, this was nothing if not improbable.
Then I got to thinking the rather bland, none to conclusive statement from Kent Councillor, Roger Gough Cabinet Member, quoted by km online in this article was interesting for the part in which he mentioned the onerous legislation but did not detail exactly why it was necessary to hand out large sums of Wonger (365K) to Mr Adam Wilkinson.
I just wonder whether we were hasty in conclusions drawn and whether Mr. Wilkinson, might have been placed in a situation by the council, that made his continued employment untenable, in which case maybe the payment of £365,000 was compensation for some failing of the council.
That might explain why Cllr Gough said this “We are unable to say more because of the contractual agreement made with Mr Wilkinson” its often the case that when legal teams settle disputes, the side required to pay out, offers settlement on the basis of confidentiality, usually so as not to appear, to have been in the wrong, a face saving exercise.
Whatever the case Kent owes us more than some vague twaddle, perhaps the previous Chief Executive could give an account of the reasons for the payment because surely he would have been involved. It is important for the taxpayer to know if this money was simply given away on a whim, which certainly appears to be the case.
Paul Carter in my opinion, needs to explain why a council officer, after 12 months of service, decided to leave and then presumably request compensation, and why, was then necessary to pay £365,000 for what we don’t know, all this frankly does not stack up.
Kent Messengers Paul Francis also wonders if there is more to this than meets the eye and this comment piece is a bit more informed than mine. Its worth noting I recall around the same time as Mr Wilkinsons leaving there were a few other changes in senior posts at KCC which might be relevant.
ITS ALL SIMPLE REALLY, KCC WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO PAY OUT £360,000 TO COMPENSATE SOMEONE FOR LEAVING THEIR JOB, SO WHY DID THEY? WE SHOULD BE TOLD!