THE controversial Wattersgate sleaze row, which flared in January and has split West Dunbartonshire Council, took another dramatic twist last night.
The Labour administration decided not to contest a Court of Session action by replacing two councillors due to sit on a special committee to hear a grievance raised by chief executive Michael Watters.
The council will now go back to the Court of Session in an attempt to have an interim interdict which halted the proceedings removed.
Mr Watters successfully raised the action after claiming that housing convener Jim Flynn and social work chairman Duncan Mills were biased against him.
Depute leader Tony Devine said last night that the council regretted the fact that Mr Watters felt it necessary to take court action against the authority.
''The administration have given very careful consideration to defending the court action,'' he said.
''The accusations made in the petition against individual Labour councillors are vehemently denied, and the administration is confident that the outcome of the court case would have gone in the council's favour.
''Notwithstanding this, the administration is aware that any court proceedings are likely to be time consuming and cause further delay to our objectives of ensuring we have an efficient and effective council.''
The three-man grievance committee was due to hear bullying complaints by Mr Watters, but was halted when the ban was imposed by Lord Cameron.
The grievance committee will be reconstituted with Councillors Patricia Rice and Geoff Calvert taking over.
Mr Watters is claiming that council leader Andy White and Labour group secretary Jim McCallum connived to get rid of him and depute Ian Leitch.
The Labour move sparked furious reaction from SNP group leader Bill Mackechnie, who claimed the issue had been a total sham from the start.
''At one stage the Labour administration is going to be exposed to ridicule in the eyes of the public,'' he said. ''This whole matter could have been sorted out weeks ago by an independent investigation.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article