The use of non-disclosure agreements “leaves a bad taste” in the mouth, the Isle of Wight Council leader has admitted.
But she said in the case of Floating Bridge 6, the settlement was the difference between a deal or no deal.
Addressing the full council on Wednesday, Councillor Lora Peacey-Wilcox said the administration would not have used a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) if they had not felt it was the only way to get a considerable financial contribution.
It follows the news the Isle of Wight Council has concluded legal mediation with the boat builders and marine architects and secured an undisclosed sum of money.
Nothing else was said about the settlement and the Isle of Wight Council has refused to comment further.
The move has been criticised and was called ‘completely unacceptable’ and a ‘secret back-room deal’ by Councillor Joe Robertson, the Conservative opposition leader at County Hall.
At last night’s meeting, Councillor Peacey-Wilcox confirmed the concealment of the settlement figure was down to the third-party insurers of the commercial contractors — Mainstay Marine and Burness Corlett Three Quays.
Councillor Peacey-Wilcox said:
“I wake up every morning trying to find new ways to do the best for Islanders and while NDAs leave a very bad taste in your mouth, they were used by the previous administration as well for commercially sensitive information.
“In this instance, given a choice between picking a deal or no deal, I put my trust in officers to do the right thing.
“I still pledge to deliver the best for this Island, even if it makes me unpopular with opposition colleagues.”
A motion was due to be heard later in the meeting, put forward by Councillor Geoff Brodie, which called on the council to ‘rebuke’ Councillor Peacey-Wilcox for failing to share a delegated decision she made back in February about granting authority to an officer to conclude mediation.
The motion was withdrawn but at the start of the meeting, while answering a public question, Councillor Peacey-Wilcox laid out a timeline of the updates the council were given about the mediation process through various committees and questions.
It doesn’t just make you unpopular with opposition colleagues, Cllr Peacey Willcox. You were already unpopular for having racist dolls in your house and dodging it when people were asking what the heck.
Don’t worry, the ICO will soon oblige the council to release the information, then you won’t have to worry yourself any more, dear.
Public money should be subject to public scrutiny.
This is a cat that really wants to get out of that bag.
They recoeved back the cost of the floating bridge plus £1.8 million in compensation from mainstay marine
Do you know this for certain, Roger?
reached an agreed settlement is one thing, receiving the money is another, especially when one of the parties went into liquidation the following day…….
Good point IR. Also, if the company that agreed the settlement with the council and insisted on the non-disclose part of the deal now defunct/bust. Does that not negate the non-disclose Part of agreement as the company ceases to exist in its previous stature? I’m not sure.
very conveiniant timing going into iquidation
If you are correct they would not be able to hide as every penny has to accounted for,even small amounts of petty cash. Unless it’s been paid in cash in brown envelopes to certain councillors/officers. There is more harm to both IWC and builders for not being transparent. Know one in right mind would ever consider using the companies that build if can’t be seen to compensate if made a mistake. Total corruption here somewhere. Never heard of a NDA over things like this and involving public money. Boris should of done same on decorating his flat. This council will voted out and IW will be claiming compensation for there wasting public money.
Cllr Joe Robertson, it was your conservative party that got us into this mess in the first place.
I think you will find it was the ‘Independent Group’ – remember them, and the audit criticism for lack of oversight was made about – ahem, Phil Jordan….
No it wasn’t, idiot. It was the independents who were in charge who ordered this farcical bridge. Try looking up the facts.
What utter hypocrisy!
‘It leaves a bad taste in the mouth’…
Says the very person who by ‘Executive Decision’ chose this course of action, and then did not reveal to Full Council what gad been done!
Nothing to see here folks…
Move along now!
Really?! Our money and more, and we gave this person making undemocratic decisions!
the woman is plainly well meaning but incompetent
Can you tell me why you delete my post when i state how much the council recieved from mainstay marine in compensation for the floating bridge
It leaves more than a bad taste in the mouth.
It also leaves the council in breach of it’s obligations of transparency and leaves it open to accusations of improper or fraudulent activity.
Both are sufficient to put it in breach of its obligations under the 2000 FOAI and are contrary to the guidelines on the appropriate use of NDOs published by the ICO.
Unless they are able to prove that publishing any part of the settlement sum and/or terms will cause significant commercial harm to either the council or the Ferry suppliers, their conversation with the ICO will be very brief.
And no, just being in breach of the NDO you signed is not sufficient.
I would also like to see how the council plan to publish accurate accounts.
That right Mark. Also, The accounts would be in the public domain, negating the agreement
Councillor Peacey-Wilcox Please shut up before you dig the hole any deeper for yourself ..your advisors have let you down very badly, and this shambles needs to end now ..
Question: Why is council tax paid in advance? All other taxes are paid in arrears? I believe it should be paid in arrears, like other taxes.