Asked if he was corrupt or incompetent, former Dundee University principal Iain Gillespie told parliament’s education committee he chose the latter.
The unwelcome choice came in a bruising three hour evidence session where the former principal was forced to defend his character and leadership style.
Committee convener Douglas Ross had a damning assessment of his time in charge, concluding that while Dundee University would go to be successful, it would be in spite of Professor Gillespie’s contribution.
In his final question, Mr Ross said he could form only one conclusion.
He asked: “You were either incompetent or corrupt. Which was it?”
‘Are you corrupt or incompetent?’
“I’m certainly not corrupt, so I have to choose incompetent,” the professor responded, in a moment that shocked onlookers.
One seasoned Holyrood observer said after the session they “did not understand” why Professor Gillespie had shown up for the evidence session.
“I don’t understand his strategy. If he came to save his reputation then he singularly failed,” the MSP said.
Professor Gillespie did score some modest wins. Under questioning from Dundee City West MSP Joe FitzPatrick, he seemed confident in his analysis of the issues with international student recruitment.
Iain Gillespie challenges attacks on character
But he struggled under questioning about both his style of leadership and his personal character, insisting the large number of accounts from those who worked closest with him were mistaken.
A crucial moment came when North East Fife MSP Willie Rennie asked whether complaints had been ever been made about his behaviour in previous roles.
Professor Gillespie initially denied any recollection, but as it became clear Mr Rennie had further detail he conceded: “In my time at the Natural Environment Research Council there was one member of staff who did make a complaint against me.
“That was about overbearing behaviour. I’m not going to mention names in public.”
Mr Rennie then revealed he had spoken with the former staff member as the hearing was under way.
Quoting the account, the MSP said: “I did not move to another research council. I left completely and went to another university, completely broken.
“I lost a lot, including my final salary pension.”
It formed a series of questions about Professor Gillespie’s style of leadership – repeatedly criticised in the independent review by Professor Pamela Gillies.
She wrote in the final report that financial failures were compounded by “the top-down, hierarchical and reportedly over-confident style of leadership and management” overseen by Professor Gillespie.
Mr Ross highlighted the large number of exits among senior staff at Dundee University in the four years prior to the former principal’s exit in December 2024.
‘Were you the problem?’
The university had four directors of people; three financial directors; three directors of external relations; three directors of strategy; and four chiefs of staff in the principal’s office.
“Were you the problem?” asked Mr Ross.
After a pause, Professor Gillespie responded: “No I didn’t think I was the problem for them leaving.”
Dundee-based Labour MSP Michael Marra also had an opportunity to quiz Professor Gillespie.
Mr Marra – who used to work at the university – says the principal was there for the good times, a “good time Charlie”.
Asking about his exit, Mr Marra noted Professor Gillespie’s keys and staff card were laid on a book called “The Spy and the Traitor”.
Mr Gillespie, who sniggered as the question was asked, said the spy thriller had been borrowed from a colleague and he was returning it.
Mr Marra accused Professor Gillespie of being an “absentee landlord” during his time at the top – pointing to his 11 trips abroad in two years and saying he had no grip on the finances or governance.
Despite some bad moments, those who watched the evidence agreed Professor Gillespie had been a more capable performer than the three witnesses who attended on Wednesday.
He appeared to shift significant blame to others, including ex-finance chief Peter Fotheringham.
He told MSPs the first he had heard of the broken covenant with the university bank was September 2024, despite it being known about for over a year.
While conceding mistakes were made, he repeatedly blamed his lack of action to tackle the crisis hurtling towards the university on a lack of information.
“Peter Fotheringham had a chance to throw Iain under the bus on Wednesday and did not do so,” one of those watching the evidence concluded.
“You can only conclude that Iain’s assessment of the covenant issue in particular is a fair one.”
Another said Professor Gillespie’s admission that he had not watched the previous day’s evidence session – or read the submitted evidence – perhaps explains why he did not see the crisis unfolding.
As he left the committee room, Professor Gillespie took no questions from the press as he was asked by The Courier if he was ashamed.
Conversation