We have no definitive inside track on the disciplinary action taken by Glasgow Clyde College board against the principal, Susan Walsh, other than suggestions of bullying and an autocratic management style.

Our report that discussions on her suspension were held in a corridor within earshot of other staff suggests it was, at least, imperfectly handled, but we also know from an investigation commissioned by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) that the action was under express delegated authority set out in the constitution of the college and was enacted after securing appropriate legal advice.

The response by the SFC in intervening so promptly by commissioning the investigation by law firm DLA Piper was a serious escalation and now the threat by Education Secretary Angela Constance to remove the college board is unprecedented and potentially incendiary.

The Government is insisting that the Higher Education Governance Bill will not lead to ministerial meddling in the running of universities. What kind of message does it send out when the Government knocks on the doors of a college boardroom staffed by volunteers?

There is merit all round in considering modernisation of both our college and university sectors. We are open to the prospect of modernising and democratising the running of our universities, as was argued on these pages yesterday by Iain Macwhirter. Public money is involved so the public deserve a say.

Should serious governance issues arise about the way the Clyde College board has acted in the handling of the suspension of the principal; the way legal advice was procured; the relationship between board members and elected student representatives; and the way board meetings were conducted then it is right for the SFC and the Scottish Government to have oversight.

It is equally clear, however, that there are serious implications for the further education sector as a result of the way the SFC and the Scottish Government have acted.

As the DLA Piper report suggested, part of the issue was the complex relationship between various accountable bodies set up as part of the new regional college structure in Glasgow that has led to the setting up of boards at college and regional level.

“The new structure is still developing and finding its feet, as are the individuals who play a role in the new structure. This is an important factor which has contributed in part to some of the relationship and governance difficulties which are at the heart of the current situation,” the report states.

The SFC commissioned the report because it felt it was not kept fully abreast of developments at Clyde, but under the new structures the board felt its first point of contact was the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board, which was informed.

The fate of one principal at one college should not be turned into a crisis of the tertiary sector. At a time of uncertainty in further education the interventions by the SFC and the Scottish Government against a board that felt it had jurisdiction over disciplinary matters relating to the principal risks sending the wrong message about where accountability and control in the sector rest.