ANDREW Flanagan, chairman of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), is now in a precarious and potentially untenable position.

The findings by MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee accusing him of “unacceptable and “inappropriate” behaviour flies in the face of Mr Flanagan’s claim the SPA has made “substantial progress” over the past 12 months.

At the heart of this damaging row lie serious concerns over the running of the SPA. To begin with there is the issue of transparency. Meetings held behind closed doors to discuss governance and with no written documentation for the record is not acceptable for a public body that plays such a vital role as a police watchdog.

That much was made clear by the Holyrood committee, who in a letter to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson said some of the SPA’s “decisions on basic operational matters have been inexplicable”.

The committee also flagged up how board members “should be far more critical” in how they question or challenge some of the decisions made by Mr Flanagan. Yet to do so appears to have already cost at least one former board member, Moi Ali, her position.

In the same damning letter to the Justice Secretary, acting audit committee convener Jackie Baillie wrote that she and her colleagues were critical of Mr Flanagan’s treatment of Ms Ali who felt she had been bullied and subsequently quit her position.

Ms Ali says she fell out with Mr Flanagan after publicly objecting to proposals to hold committee meetings in private.

Mr Flanagan subsequently responded with a letter expressing his dissatisfaction with Ms Ali and claiming it was no longer “fair to you or to your fellow board members for you to participate in the committees”.

MSPs noted: “It appears to us Mr Flanagan treated Ms Ali in an inappropriate manner, to the degree she felt obliged to resign.”

Given the fallout over Ms Ali’s resignation, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICS), announced it would bring forward their own inspection of the SPA. Chief Inspector Derek Penman said it was likely he would recommend the SPA scrap its private meetings.

But even in regard to this, Mr Flanagan was found wanting and has been criticised for deciding not to pass on a critical letter to his SPA board colleagues written by Mr Penman in relation to the concerns over secrecy.

As the audit committee has made clear, Mr Flanagan’s decision is even harder to understand not only because the letter formally confirmed Mr Penman intended to undertake a statutory inspection of the SPA, but because such an announcement was of supreme importance to SPA board members.

What all this amounts to are serious failing on Mr Flanagan’s behalf.

Set up at a cost of billions of pounds the SPA was meant to provide oversight of Police Scotland. Instead, it’s the watchdog itself that is now under serious scrutiny and in need of drastic overhaul in terms of how it is run. As for Mr Flanagan himself it is hard to see how he can justifiably remain in his post.