UPDATE* See bottom of this article.
Disgraced former head of Childrens Services Joyce Thacker has been given a £40,000 pay off by RMBC after resigning from her £130,000 per year post. The council said it had reached a mutual agreement with Mrs Thacker on the termination of her contract and the sum was “less than the contractual notice requirement”. Which is absolute rubbish.
If an employee does not give an employer the correct notice, they will be in breach of contract and will not be entitled to pay.
” I am astounded that taxpayers’ money has been used in what will be seen as a reward for the failures of Rotherham Council.The committee recommended Joyce Thacker, and others, resign for their inaction in light of the huge number of child sexual abuse cases. It was inappropriate of her to accept such a large sum when she left. I hope action will be taken to ensure that this money is repaid, and that large pay offs cannot be given under similar circumstances in the future”
– Keith Vaz, Chairman of select committee investigating Rotherham.
Who made the decision to hand over a sizeable chunk of taxpayers money to Thacker? Was the decision agreed in a full council meeting? What was the role of Ms. J. Collins-Legal and Monitoring Officer RMBC-in this undeserved pay off? Paul Lakin is fudging the reasons why the Child Snatcher was able to negotiate this massive reward for failure. Lakin forgets he is spending OUR money.
* Watchman says; An impeccable source has confirmed the following information:
RMBC could not sack Thacker because they could not prove misconduct and they were also aware that if they did sack her she would have sued the Council which could possibly have cost RMBC £250,000 as Sharon Shoesmith did when Ed Balls fired her over the ‘Baby P’ case and she was awarded £250,000 in compensation. Thacker could have gone off sick with a stress related illness for more than 12 months and she would have received her full pay for 6 months (£60,000 + NI + Pension contributions) Then a further £40,000 + NI + Pension contributions minimum and she would still be in her post. Therefore it was concluded that giving Thacker £40,000-and her pension entitlement-was the best possible deal for RMBC and local taxpayers.
Thacker could have been disciplined and/or sacked because she failed to do her job properly. Dereliction of duty generally refers to a failure to conform to rules of one’s job, which will vary by tasks involved. It is a failure or refusal to perform assigned duties in a satisfactory manner. Dereliction of duty on the part of an employee may be cause for disciplinary action, which will vary by employer. It may refer to a failure by an organization member to abide by the standing rules of its constitution or by-laws or perform the duties of the position appointed to. On the 2nd September the Home Secretary Theresa May condemned RMBC for ‘Dereliction of Duty’. Rotherham council, police and other agencies failed to protect vulnerable children who were abused in the town, the Home Secretary has said. Answering an urgent question in the House of Commons, Theresa May said they were guilty of “appalling failures”.