Is role right for axed clerk?

Latest letters from the Suffolk Free Press, suffolkfreepress.co.uk, @sfpsudbury on Twitter
Latest letters from the Suffolk Free Press, suffolkfreepress.co.uk, @sfpsudbury on Twitter

Late last year, I read with interest in the Suffolk Free Press that the clerk of Sudbury Town Council had been suspended.

I noted the support for her that followed and assumed she had been treated badly and waited to hear the outcome.

I then heard that she had been sacked, but that the reasons could not be revealed before a period had elapsed, to allow for appeal. A few weeks later, news emerged of the reason for her sacking – gross misconduct.

I read several accounts in which Mrs Brotherwood admitted having done the things that she was accused of, but claimed that she had done no wrong and that, in fact, it was a good use of the money.

Of course she had done wrong, and was dismissed, and she did not appeal.

Only now I hear that she has been voted unanimously into the chairman role of a health group in Sudbury.

I am confused as to how this has happened, so publicly and, apparently, without any criminal investigation.

This “gross misconduct” involved many thousands of pounds of our money. Are there no safeguards against this within the council’s procedures? Aren’t these people subject to the same laws as “ordinary” citizens of Suffolk?

I know that if I had mishandled somebody else’s money in my job, I would have been dealt with as having broken the law and certainly not handed a powerful role in another organisation for all to see that gross misconduct apparently pays.

Or am I missing something?

Angela Wiltshire

Hadleigh