Sentinel Leader: You must be joking
IT will be a disgrace, and a gross dereliction of duty to taxpayers, if financially troubled Stoke-on-Trent City Council pays a penny to self-pitying interim chief executive Chris Harman.
It has no legal or moral obligation to pay off Mr Harman, because his bid to become the new chief executive was unsuccessful. The man still has a £157,000-a-year job: he is the council's assistant chief executive.
And now that his time covering the vacant chief executive's position is nearly at an end, he has a clearly defined role to return to. The suggestion that he cannot do so, because he no longer feels he enjoys the confidence of councillors is nonsense.
Councillors may not have chosen him for the top job, because they found a better candidate, but they may think him a very capable deputy.
Mr Harman has been absent on sick leave since the day John van de Laarschot's appointment was ratified.
There may be very genuine reasons for Mr Harman's absence, but he should be aware he runs the risk of appearing self-indulgent and unprofessional. Why is the city council indulging him?
Why are its lawyers considering his request, when the man has a job? For what exactly should he be compensated? And how much is he asking for? And what about the cost to the council of recruiting his replacement?
If Mr Harman wishes to leave he can hand in his notice. Otherwise the council should be inviting his return and considering its legal position if he doesn't.
The only person rendering Mr Harman's position untenable is Mr Harman himself. And he shouldn't be rewarded for it.
3 Comments
by Richard, Stoke
Thursday, October 15 2009, 8:26AM
“Of course, the Sentinel along with the councillors have all fallen into the cunning trap laid by Mr Harman. Even if the principle stinks, he's played you all to his advantage and now capitalised on the situation. Don't forget he's a HR professional, so he knows employment law and his rights. What was, and should have been treated as, an internal employment issue has now become a public debate.
If the job was even remotely tenable before all this, then it certainly isn't now after all this publicity and press coverage. Remember Michael Martin, the Speaker - he's done very nicely after the media coverage even if he did lose his job.
He must be sniggering away, imagining his future claim just going skywards. He can probably also add to it that his employer has not protected him from the bad press, as all employees can expect from their employer.
If that wasn't enough, he'll probably seek some compensation too. It'll all happen behind closed doors some months away, but he'll be paid off just you see - thanks to the councillors feeding the press, and the press feeding the ratepayers, who ultimately foot the bill for this.
It's morally despicable, but to be fair he seems to have the advantage and will come out the richer for it”
by Worker, At work (thankfully)
Wednesday, October 14 2009, 12:31PM
“If I pulled a stunt like this I would be sacked.”
by STAFFMEMBER, STOKE
Wednesday, October 14 2009, 12:11PM
“Mr Harman off on the sick while I cannot get any answers on whether the council will be increasing the jobless millions by adding me”