Ex-Coatbridge College Principal Defends Pay Off
A former college principal has accused Scotland's top public spending watchdog of unfounded and vexatious claims against him after she concluded he deliberately withheld information that would have prevented him receiving a massive pay-off.
John Doyle, former principal of Coatbridge College, and John Gray, former chairman of the college board, defended themselves at Holyrood's Public Audit Committee against allegations staff members colluded to feather their own nests'' with public funds when the college was merged into New College Lanarkshire.
Email trails demonstrate that public paymaster the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) repeatedly advised Mr Doyle and Mr Gray that any severance package equivalent to more than a year's pay would be unreasonable.
However, Mr Doyle, who earned £116,000 a year by the end of his service, was given a 21-month lump sum, plus three months for completing the merger and a further six months' pay in lieu of notice, totalling 30 months' pay.
In total, Mr Doyle, a member of his staff and five managers shared half of a £1.7 million severance pot between them.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she was personally appalled'' by the pay-offs, which Auditor General Caroline Gardner described as one of the most serious failures in governance she has ever encountered.
She found that SFC was powerless to stop them, despite taking legal advice on whether the money could be recovered, and that its concerns appear to have been deliberately withheld from the college remuneration committee.
Mr Doyle said he took great exception to the conclusions today and Mr Gray said he totally rejects the Auditor General's report.
Speaking to journalists after the committee, Mr Doyle said he has nothing to apologise for and that he does not intend to hand the money back.
In evidence to the committee, Mr Doyle said: I take great exception to the conclusions reached, and vexatious statements made, by the Auditor General about myself, John Gray and the senior team. They are totally unfounded.''
Mr Doyle insists he appointed law firm Biggart Baillie to act on his behalf at board meetings when it emerged there could be a conflict of interest.
He said minutes of the meetings, which remain unpublished, demonstrate board members were aware of the SFC non-binding guidance on mergers and they subsequently approved the pay-off. Mr Gray said: I totally reject the Auditor General's conclusions.
I'm surprised that the Auditor General was able to draw such emphatic and terse conclusions without at least the courtesy of discussing the situation with the two people being criticised - John Doyle and myself.
The minutes of the board of the remuneration committee on October 23 2013, which happened to be the day I demitted office, and subsequent correspondence... show quite clearly that all involved were fully informed of the situation and which together correctly stated the final position.''
However, members of the board have written to the committee to say they were not aware of the SFC's objections.
Conservative MSP Mary Scanlon said: We have submissions from remuneration committee members.
I quote 'the committee members were advised that no specific guidance was available', that was relating to (a meeting on) January 28 from David Craig.
From Ralph Gunn: 'The committee were clearly informed that what they were being asked to agree with, the proposals for your 21 months plus six months plus three months, were in line with SFC guidelines for senior staff'.
The submissions here say that the remuneration committee were misled and they were not given the information that you had from the SFC.''
Mr Doyle said: That is inaccurate. We have a board intranet that contained everything on it.''
He said he was not at the board meetings but has an informed opinion about the role of Biggart Baillie in ensuring that all remuneration committee members were well aware''.
Journalists asked Mr Doyle if he would repay the money after the committee.
He said: You have heard the evidence given. Why would I pay money that is not due to anyone? I was only given the amount of money that I was contracted to be paid.
I haven't done anything wrong, as you have quite rightly heard. I don't think it appropriate to apologise for something I have not done.
It's not taxpayers' money. The evidence that I gave today, that the committee now has, quite clearly demonstrates that I have done absolutely nothing wrong.''