SIR, – I write in response to your article regarding the Crofting Commission elections and, in particular, my being referred to as “Controversial” which seems on any account rather harsh, unless of course one associates telling the truth in government circles as controversial .

Should it be the following facts are controversial, then it is the duty of those in power to investigate and bring to book those responsible for creating the controversy and I call on Fergus Ewing to authorise that investigation as I understand it may be a criminal offence to destroy papers .

As convener of the Crofting Commission, I was provided with a paper bearing the signature of the chief executive relative to removing grazing committees from office, with a request that a decision be taken outwith the board room. As convener, I refused and insisted such decisions would be taken by the full board at an appropriate meeting of the board.

At a meeting of the full board which considered the papers, the board decision as minuted was to refer the matter via the chief executive to the in-house solicitor to seek advice relative to removing any grazing committee from office, prior to any removal of grazing committee decision being taken.

When a second paper was presented on the same subject, with the matter allegedly having been cleared by the in-house solicitor, the board took a decision, as minuted, to remove from office grazing committees based on the information presented by the chief executive. It should be noted that I have been led to believe that, despite the board agreed minute, the requested advice was never requested.

It should be noted, in so far as I am aware and I believe to be correct, no other members of the executive were involved in the production of those papers and, therefore, should not be associated with the content or having any involvement .

The board also agree three individuals to be on a panel of available candidates for selection as grazing constables, with the authority for any such appointment vested in the combination of the convener, vice convener and chief executive .

I would suggest the only controversial aspect regarding the above is as follows: Who took the decision to appoint the constables in Upper Coll and Bohuntin? And from what panel were they chosen?

It certainly was not the convener, the vice convener and chief executive as agreed by the board; nor were the constables chosen on the agreed panel.

Sorry I am unable to inform you who took the above decisions as I was not involved, nor was the vice convener.

Now, what became of the papers presented to the board for a decision, not to be found anywhere on Commission records, no copies to be found in the office, no requests to Commissioners when an FOI was received.

As identified in section 31 of the governance review, only because someone had retained a copy were they able to locate those papers.

As convener, I failed to establish what became of those papers and I question the information fed into the office of Fergus Ewing who repeatedly stated the content was “your view” when addressing myself.

Well, Fergus, you need to think again and find whose view it was to destroy the papers; it certainly was not the view of the convener, given I was the one who retained the available copy.

Should it be that good record keeping by the convener, who retained his copy, when asked to ensure all copies were destroyed amounts to being “controversial,” then I apologise for my wrong doing and not obeying the orders of the master to do my “house keeping” which was described as the term used when we were to make sure certain papers were destroyed.

I could write much more on many other issues, and while I am portrayed as controversial, I am satisfied my having the courage to take a document to Scottish Government on August 28, 2016 highlighting the many issues which required serious action, and my requesting a full investigation be conducted by an independent external investigator is not really controversial, other than that I was not willing to be part of the old guard who simply hid everything under the carpet.

It has been an educational five years; I now understand black is not black and white is not white, and being described as controversial can now be regarded as a compliment!

Colin N Kennedy

Highland Corrie

Arinagour

Isle Of Coll

Argyll