Now Duffy asks about missing councillor and 'jollies' from developers

This is part 2 of Cllr Duffy's correspondence with Cllr James Allie who will be chairing the Standards Committee tonight:

Dear James , 

Here is part two of my concerns please ensure the co-opted member are given a copy. Also if you are not the person or committee who deals with these issues please pass them on to the CEO with the questions as a FOI .

(A) Committee attendance 

James as a member of  the Labour group you are  probably aware that I have been left off committees for the past two years. You maybe also be aware that I won an election to be on scrutiny committee but was then removed and was not placed on any committee whatsoever this year. This is in-spite of the fact that attendance at committee meetings is very  low and the recommendation from the Penn report concerning the death of CIIr Oladapo (Tayo) said under 2.

What, if any, improvements the Council should implement"

(i)consideration should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub- committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule. This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule". 

I know you have witnessed the exchange of emails between the Labour Party chief whip Cllr Kabir and myself about this issue of me being removed from all committees. Therefore you can imagine my surprise when just before full council meeting on  last Monday! Cllr  Kabir told me that she had put me on the Licensing committee replacing another councillor, without asking my permission or my availability .I informed Cllr Kabir that I would not stand as I believe it was just cover-up to hide the fact a councillor had moved out of Brent sometime previous  and she was not willing to attend any more meetings than the bare minimum. I also told Cllr Kabir I was not good enough  for the leadership to nominate me for any committee meetings in May,  therefore what had changed by September.

I was at the time and subsequently concerned that the Labour leadership are not being transparent to residents  that  I am being brought into a deception without my knowledge. Also in the Penn report it said "consideration should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed. Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by another member or an officer". 
I am concerned that the apologies are being managed by the Chief whip in a blanket fashion and do not relate absences due to illness or any other reason , just the unwillingness of a councillor  to travel to Brent.I  wonder if under standards you would be willing to start an investigation into 

(1) When did the councillor leave Brent?

(2) Was the CEO and the Head of Legal informed ?

(3) If not why not ?

(4) Did the CEO and HOL give any advice?

(B) Hospitality 

As you know there has been a  successful planning application for Tottenham Hotspurs to play at Wembley , many people suggested Tottenham got a good deal  and many local Cllrs objected to the conditions. I have been informed by  a member of the public  both the Leader of the council Cllr Butt and lead member for Regeneration and planning Cllr Tatler have received hospitality from Tottenham since the planning permission was granted. Whereas I have some understanding that we need to keep relations open with the Wembley and their tenant Tottenham,  However I  do not understand why the lead member for planning should participate in hospitality as this could seemingly bring  the planning system into disrepute , therefore I ask you to ensure both these councillors  and any others who have participated in Hospitality declare  the reasons why they were offered hospitality and did they check it with the CEO,before excepting also if you could enquire 

(1) How many tickets were received and value.

(2) Who attended the matches with them.

(3) Reason  for the hospitality ( sometimes its OK to look at an issue of say crowd control ,traffic management, or a new street cleansing practise. However  receiving hospitality should not just be for a "Jolly Boys outing@ for them and their family that is not acceptable)

(4) Can you also enquire whether any other Councillors , Officers or relative have received hospitally from Tottenham or Wembley stadium.

In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as ' When you dance with a developer, its always to their tune". I hope you see that a declaration alone without reason is not enough, what we must consider is what the average man /women in the street would think, that is why I ask you to look at the issue.

Cllr Duffy asks Standards Committee to defer his item to allow independent input

Cllr John Duffy, subject of a report going to Standards Committee tonight LINK, has requested that members refer back the report to allow independent input into the matter.

This is his email to Cllr Allie, cahir of the committee.

Dear James , 

I was not informed of this meeting and only read about it on Wembley Matter on the 22^nd September. No doubt the CEO and the head of legal will say I was told six months ago this would be referred to the next meeting, however it is up to you to decide, whether it would be reasonable for CEO to inform me of the date of that meeting once it has been fixed.  

Anyway I am unable to attend tonight for personal reasons. Can you pass this email on to the co-oped members.

Let  me first point out there is no independent input into the report and I refused to accept that officers can come to a decision on selective emails and therefore I refuse to co-operate unless someone who was not on the officers “payroll” was involved.

Let me get things right and state why I believe the CEO was wrong  to leave Brent  to sit on operation Gold. I believe operation GOLD, was a complete waste of time,it's not my opinion it's the opinion of many  people.I strongly believe that quangos very seldom solve problems and I believe I have a right to voice that, as we live in a democracy.

In the aftermath of the disaster I believe the Ministers were wrong to set up a quangos of CEOs as many of the victims believed senior officers were responsible for not listening to them. What was needed were operation teams with hands on experience of logistics  and how to deal with problems that would arise from Re -Housing, Social Services , Bereavement counselling, Food distribution etc. CEO could play a role by nominating their best officers and put them into the field with resources.The ministers view that we need more Chiefs instead of Indians was proven wrong. 

The following day I went down to South Kilburn  and identified two blocks I believe were of concern, George and Swift House and raised it with the CEO during the next few days neither the CEO, the lead member for housing Cllr Harbi, the lead member for Regeneration Cllr Tatler appeared in South Kilburn, even though they were aware of SK  close proximity to Grenfell and the  fabric of the buildings was similar.

The officers on site did a sterling job on ensuring all survey were carried out.I also recognised that the Leader and Deputy Leader and the MP Tulip Siddiq (who chaired a very well received meeting) turned up to reassure residents.

However the CEO's decision not to support a emergency meeting was in my opinion wrong. It was clear the meeting may have been difficult as many resident needed to vent their  anger and frustration.

The CEO had a number of options of how to respond to the request from the 5 Councillors,Cllr Chan and Cllr Hector requested a meeting via all councillor email which included the Mayor.  

She could have supported the meeting and assist the members who were calling for a meeting to get passed, or to ignore those members of the council and use the bureaucratic tactics to ensure it did not take place. The CEO then compounded the issue saying a meeting would take place but the residents would be barred and the meeting would last no -longer than a ½ hour.I believe the later decision was  the worst decisionand an affront to the democratic process 

I believe the CEO was wrong so I am releasing some of the private emails LINK between the CEO and myself and other officers,which may explain what was going on at the time,means from the bottom-up.

I do have respect for the CEO and I believe she is very competent, however she is not infallible and on this occasion I believe she made a mistake on this occasion.

Overall I believe Brent officers did well following the Grenfell disaster. Therefore I think the CEO should concentrate on where we agree not where we disagree. 

I would ask committee members to refer the report back to allow independent input into the report.

I have other things I wish to raise with the standards  which I will send you later to today before the meeting .

The emails Cllr Duffy refers to can be found on his blog Kilburn Calling HERE

Brent Council advertises for Standards Committee Independent Members

From Jobs Go Public LINK

 

-->

Standards Committee Independent Members

Employer: Brent Council

Salary range: £423 p.a. inc. Contract: Fixed term (2 years subject to confirmation by Full Council each year) Hours of work: As and when required Location: Civic Centre and other locations from time to time

At the Heart of Brent 

Brent is a tremendously vibrant London borough where the iconic arch of Wembley Stadium dominates the skyline. Spanning both inner and outer London, it is a borough of huge contrasts in terms of its economic, environmental, ethnic and social make up. Brent’s diversity is evident to all who visit our borough and our long history of ethnic and cultural diversity has created a place that is truly unique and valued by those who live and work here.   The council is pursuing a far-reaching transformation agenda that better meets the needs of our community so it is an exciting time to join us.  

The Post       

Brent Council is seeking to strengthen its corporate governance arrangements by appointing two additional Independent Members to its Standards Committee. The Council’s Standards Committee is responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct by members (including co-opted members) of Brent Council. In particular, the Standards Committee has a key role to play in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the Brent Council Members’ Code of Conduct which sets the standards of conduct expected of its members when they act in an official capacity.

The Person   

The successful candidates will have a keen interest in standards in public life and a wish to serve the local community and uphold local democracy. They will have sound decision making skills and be able to maintain independence, impartiality and integrity at all times.   Closing Date: 8 May 2016 (23:59) Assessment & Interview Date:  w/c 16 May 2016

Additional Information 

Brent Council values the diversity of its community and aims to have a workforce that reflects this and therefore encourage applications from all sections of the community.   Applications are particularly welcome from people with a disability as they are under represented across the council.

All organisations and individuals who work with children and young people, or are involved in providing services for them have a duty to safeguard and promote their welfare.   We are committed to safer recruitment and safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people and expect all staff and volunteers to share this commitment.

Before you join Brent Council, you will need to provide your National Insurance (NI) number and undergo a Home Office Standard I.D. check.   Please note CVs will not be considered as part of your application for this position.   More Info:   Job Description   Click Here For Disabled Applicants  

Apply Now

·       Apply Online (External Website)

Standards at Brent Council – Will Standards Committee set a good example?

This guest blog by Philip Grant continues his attempt to ensure Brent Council displays high standards of conduct in public life.
 

In a blog article of 2 January 2016 LINK I referred to the Annual Report which Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer was presenting to its Standards Committee the following week, and some matters of concern which it raised. I was not able to attend the meeting, so was interested to read what the minutes of the committee meeting on 7 January would have to say about that Report. This is the text of the draft minute for that item, which appeared on the Council’s website last Friday:

‘5. Annual Report to the Standards Committee 2014 - 2015

The committee considered the circulated report of the Monitoring Officer which updated members on conduct issues and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer for the period December 2014 to December 2015.

The committee was informed that the process of recruiting Independent Persons would begin later in January. Councillor Warren enquired about the Council’s existing arrangements. He proposed that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile in order to give the role greater credibility by bringing forward their role in the process of considering complaints. Concern was expressed that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer and that such an arrangement was not followed in other boroughs.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report 2014/15 be noted;

(ii)          that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.’

While I am glad to see that Standards Committee did more than simply ‘note’ the Annual Report, which is what the Monitoring Officer had recommended they should do, the brevity of this minute raises more questions than it gives answers to.

1.     What was Cllr. Warren’s enquiry ‘about the Council’s existing arrangements’ (for Independent Persons?), and what was he told in reply to his enquiry?

2.     Which other committee members raised enquiries on, or made comments about, the Annual Report; what points did they raise and what answers were they given?

3.     Was Cllr.Warren’s proposal ‘that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile’ put as a formal motion, and what discussion (and vote?) took place on this proposal?

4.     Who was it that expressed concern ‘that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer’, and what reasons were put forward in support of that concern?

5.     Who put forward the resolution (not referred to in the Annual Report itself) ‘that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of Standards Committee’, and what views were expressed “for” or “against” this proposal?

The minutes of the meeting at which the previous Annual Report was presented (9 December 2014) give details of a number of questions raised and comments made by committee members; these are followed by a 17-line paragraph beginning: ‘In reply to the issues raised, Kathy Robinson advised that …’ which gives answers to the points raised. [For information: Kathy Robinson was the Council solicitor deputising for the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden.] Why was that precedent, and the good practice it showed of properly recording in the minutes what happened, not followed for the meeting on 7 January 2016? And how can the draft minute for item 5, quoted above, ‘be approved as an accurate record of the meeting’?

The purpose of Standards Committee, as set out on the Council’s website, is:

‘To promote high standards of conduct by councillors, to receive allegations that councillors may have failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct.’

At the heart of those high standards of conduct are the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (see footnote below for an explanation of what these principles should mean in practice), which all members must comply with whenever they are conducting any business of the Council.

I hope that the members of Standards Committee (to whom I am sending a copy of this blog article) will show openness and accountability, by amending the draft minutes for item 5, so that they record properly the actions of those who took part in the discussions on the Annual Report and the reasons given for those actions, so that the public can hold them to account. The amended minutes for the meeting on 7 January should then be posted on the Council’s website, in place of the draft minutes, as soon as possible after 21 March.

By amending the draft minutes, Standards Committee would demonstrate leadership, in promoting high standards of conduct. It would also avoid the integrity and honesty of committee members being called into question, which could be the case if it appeared that the minutes were deliberately being kept vague, as part of ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’. Failure to amend the draft minutes would provide further evidence for the criticisms I made about Brent Council in my open letter to its Chief Executive on 27 November 2015 LINK

So, please come on, Standards Committee, and set a good example over standards of conduct to other members, to encourage public confidence in Brent Council.

Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:

‘You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general conduct principles:

The General Principles

Selflessness – you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

Integrity – you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

Objectivity – you should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – you should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.

Openness – you should be as open as possible about your actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.

Leadership – you should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Cllr Allie warned over magazine reading during Brent Council budget debate - but no reference to Standards Committee

Brent Council has refused to refer a complaint about a councillor's conduct made by well known  Brent Twitter activist @PukkahPunjabi.

Pukkah Punjabi's  sent the following email to Fiona Alderman, Brent Council Chief Legal officer on February 23rd 2016:

I would like to register a complaint at the conduct of Councillor James Allie during tonight's (22nd Feb) council meeting. During the entire budget debate, which given the current financial situation is of the utmost gravity to Brent residents, Cllr Allie was seen reading a magazine (the Catholic Herald) which bore no relevance to the proceedings. When I took the photos attached to this email he showed me what he was reading and was unapologetic about the fact that he had just spent the past hour paying no attention to proceedings.

I wish to have this matter investigated by the Standards Committee as I believe Cllr Allie has shown a disregard for the residents of Alperton who elected him and complete contempt for all the residents of Brent who will soon be feeling the impact of the budget decisions taken tonight and which Cllr Allie regarded as undeserving of his time.

I look forward to your response.

Fiona Alderman replied on March 10th 2016

I write further to your complaint in relation to Councillor Allie’s conduct at the Full Council meeting on 22^th February 2016. 

I have considered the complaint under the Members’ Code of Conduct complaints procedure and have consulted the Independent Person, the Chief Whip and the Chief Executive. In all the circumstances, I have decided that on this occasion your complaint does not warrant any further action under the Code of Conduct. I have, however, reported your complaint to the Chief Whip for the Labour Group and written to Councillor Allie to advise him that the conduct you complained of must not be repeated.

In exercising my discretion, I took into account one of the comments you tweeted about Councillor Allie after the meeting on 22 February 2016, which he drew to my attention, which refers to Councillor Allie in insulting, derogatory and defamatory terms. Such comments are unacceptable and are unhelpful in holding Members to account.

The last paragraph is of particular interest because it appears that Alderman is judging the legitimacy of a complaint based on the person making the complaint rather than the substance. The admonishment in the last sentence to someone who is a member of the public and not a councilllor or council employee is extremely high-handed - who is Fiona Alderman to instruct a member of the public in their conduct on social media?

Does this mean that if another member of the public had complained that the complaint would have been referred to the Standards Committee?

Double stndards?

Note

If anyone is interested in the 'insulting, deregatory and defamatory' tweet, just use your imagination and knowledge of @PukkahPunjabi's tweeting style and the interests of practising merchant bankers.

How can Brent Standards be upheld without properly apppinted 'Independent Persons?

Philip Grant has decided that he cannot continue his personal campaigning against what he sees as wrongs at Brent Council, because of the strain it has put on him and his family. In a final guest blog on the subject, he gives some thoughts on a report which will be going before Brent’s Standards Committee at its meeting on Thursday 7 January 2016.

High Standards of Conduct at Brent Council?

A press release issued by the Council on 11 December 2015 stated: ‘Brent Council is committed to the highest ethical standards in the work of its elected councillors and co-opted members, embodying the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.’ But how true is this in practice?

In her Annual Report for 2015 to Brent’s Standards Committee LINK the Monitoring Officer says that she received SIXTEEN complaints against councillors for breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct during the year (nine from members of the public, two from Council employees and five from other councillors). One of the main purposes of the Standards Committee is to ‘hear allegations of misconduct against members’, but NONE of these complaints were actually referred to the committee in 2015, so that it could consider whether they should be investigated.

I was one of the local residents who made a complaint during the year against a leading councillor, which alleged multiple breaches (covering all seven of the conduct principles) of the Code which members are supposed to follow. My complaint must be among the EIGHT which the report claims ‘did not disclose a potential breach of the code’, as the reason why it was not brought to the attention of the Standards Committee. The Monitoring Officer has the authority not to consider a complaint, but only if it is not against a named member and/or is not ‘in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct’.

As anyone who has read my open letter of 27 November 2015 to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs LINK , will know, the allegations in my complaint to the Monitoring Officer against Cllr. Muhammed Butt disclosed a number of potential breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which should have been referred to Standards Committee. How can Brent’s people have confidence that high standards of conduct are being maintained by the Council, when genuine complaints of misconduct are covered up in this way?

In explaining how complaints about members are dealt with, the Annual Report says (at 3.7): 

‘There are clear parameters for this and these are set out in the procedure LINK that was adopted by this Committee in January 2013’.   

If the complaint is one which should be considered, the procedure states (at 4.5):

‘The Monitoring Officer will consult with the Independent Person to determine the course of action to be taken.   This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint.’

It was only after I challenged the Monitoring Officer’s decision, made three months after my complaint had been received, not to refer my complaint to Standards Committee that a possible review by ‘the Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011’ was suggested.

Who is that Independent Person? According to the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report (at 3.3):

‘The Council is in the process of recruiting Independent Persons to fulfil the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 …. The recruitment process will start in January 2016.’ *

The Council did appoint two Independent Persons under the Act’s transitional provisions, John Mann and Sola Afuape (who had both been independent members of Standards Committee under its old format). Those appointments ended in May 2014, and these two persons were not eligible to act as Independent Persons thereafter. Minutes of Council meetings show that there have been “vacancies” for Independent Persons for Standards purposes since then, and that NO ONE has been properly appointed to fill that role. It would appear that, for more than eighteen months, Brent Council has not had “an Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011”. In that case, how can Brent’s Standards procedures have been properly applied?

Standards Committee meets at the Civic Centre on Thursday 7 January to consider the Annual Report. The meeting starts at 7pm, and is open to the public. I hope that the committee members will ask the Monitoring Officer to explain why she is not allowing them to carry out the important work of hearing ‘allegations of misconduct against members’ which they were elected to do. Unless there is openness and accountability over standards, Brent, like Rotherham in an Inspector’s report last February, will show itself to be a council which ‘goes to some length to cover up information and to silence whistle-blowers.’

* NOTE:

Wembley Matters readers may like to consider whether they could help to improve standards of conduct at Brent Council by applying to be an Independent Person. The role should be advertised later this month, but from a previous “candidate pack” (issued by the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden, in April 2014) the main requirements are:

·      to be committed to the need for high standards in public life and be aware of the views of the local community in relation to standards;

·      to have the ability to be objective, independent and impartial;

·      to have a demonstrable interest in local issues and desire to serve the local community and uphold democracy; and,

·      to be of good standing in the community.

There is one main bar to appointment as an Independent Person:

‘A person cannot be appointed as an Independent Person if they have been a member of any political party within the last five years or are actively engaged in party political activity.’