More clarity is needed at the DPA
THE timing of the ongoing saga of the vice-presidency of the Development & Planning Authority, dovetailing as it has with the interrogation of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson by MPs, has brought some similarities between the two into focus, including a distinct lack of clarity over what went on and what should have happened.
Has the president of the DPA misled her committee in pursuing a new vice-president to replace Deputy Andrew Taylor, who has sat uncomfortably among its number for months, which she denies, or is it a matter of ‘mistakes and misunderstandings’?
We know that Deputy Victoria Oliver received clear advice from HM Procureur, followed up by no less than the Bailiff, after conducting a new election for vice-president.
But while seeking to clarify that advice from Richard McMahon, she admits that she failed to brief her committee over the course of six weeks.
That’s not a good look. So will her colleagues accept the explanation so far, seek further answers, or perceive this as some kind of a witch-hunt against the vice-president, in what is clearly a troubled relationship, which has been pursued in breach of the rules and official guidance?
With rumours of a no-confidence vote starting to circulate, the DPA president needs to clarify the position and demonstrate that she, and the committee, can move forward together.