A Council with a huge majority needs an opposition, even if it a Tory one. Tonight the Brondesbury Park Tories will move a budget amendment which would reduce the Council Tax by 2.5% and that they claim would also protect front-line services.
Further details of how they think they would achieve this should be available at Full Council.
They are also tabling an amendment to Item 8 on Pay Policy:
Further details of how they think they would achieve this should be available at Full Council.
They are also tabling an amendment to Item 8 on Pay Policy:
Key Strategic Aims of HR Strategy for 2015/2019.......In addition Cllr John Warren has submitted the following to the Mayor:
To add "adopting a zero tolerance approach to bullying, intimidation and harrassment of staff by fellow staff members."
Mr.Mayor,
I have been approached by Brent residents who are unable to make a deputation
tonight, as that is not an agenda item.
The urgent business is as follows......" To allow the Leader of the Council the opportunity to reply to two urgent questions raised by the recent high profile Industrial* Tribunal case....
1.How can staff have confidence in the latest round of job cuts when it is presided over by senior officers responsible for staff victimisation,racial discrimination and failing to follow the Council's HR procedures......as per.the same Industrial Tribunal judgement?
2.Why is Cllr.Butt still " protecting " the officers in this case? "*Should be Employment Tribunal (MF)
16 comments:
As the author of the two important questions to Cllr. Butt, arising from the Council's apparent lack of action over the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement, I am grateful to Councillor Warren for asking the Mayor to allow Cllr. Butt the opportunity to answer those questions under "urgent business" at the end of this evening's Full Council meeting.
"Urgent business" items can be heard if the Mayor decides that they are urgent - it is entirely a matter for his discretion. I believe that this is a matter which the Council does need to face up to urgently, as its lack of action, or even any attempt to explain why it considers that no action needs to be taken against those senior officers, details of whose misconduct is set out in the judgement, is bringing the Council into disrepute. I understand that the affair has recently featured in Private Eye's "Rotton Boroughs" column, and an online article on the Kilburn Times website last Friday carried criticism from Brent Anti Racism Campaign, as well as highlighting Brent's repeated refusal to answer questions about whether any disciplinary action had been taken against its HR Director, Cara Davani, for the findings the Tribunal had made against her.
If the Mayor has any doubts over whether he should allow this matter to be raised at item 10 on this evening's agenda, using his discretion under the powers given to him by Brent's Constitution, I think he should reflect on what the purpose of that Constitution is. As it says in Part 1 (Purpose of the Constitution):-
1.4 The purpose of the Constitution is to:
• create a powerful and effective means of holding decision-makers to public account;
• ensure that those responsible for decision making are clearly identifiable to local people and that they explain the reasons for decisions;
As Leader of the Council, Cllr. Butt must have some involvement in the decisions in this case. Let him be held to public account.
Philip Grant
Philip Grant I understand your feelings on the matter but do you really believe that the current Mayor and Labour Cllrs have ever bothered to read the Brent Constitution?
The Mayor and other council members might also like to reflect on the spectacle of the Tories being able to take the moral high ground on racial discrimination, workplace bullying, harassment and victimisation.
The matter is made particularly urgent as within weeks there will be a general election which will be very close-fought, marginal local seats are involved and the stink coming from the Brent council Labour leadership over this matter is going to do the national party no good at all.
Mike Hine
Pity Brent Labour Councillors did not have it in them to simply Revolt against their own party leader.
The leader will eventually be History over this and many other issues in the Borough.
The leader can't go on simply saying it is Tories Lib Dems fault any Brent Council is just the messanger. This does not wash with hard working people who have seen cuts to services and yet the wealthier in society can live the high life.
It is about time Brent Labour stood up for local citizens.
Ironically it is Tory opposition seeking to have the budget reviewed.
It would be a good thing if Eric Pickles had to be called in !
All the fraud and corruption will then be uncovered just like Tower Hamlets
Yes hold Councillor Butt to public account.
Cllr Lang made 2 good points why are cllrs allowed to have free parking at the civic centre and why are they given free food at these meetings whilst residents suffer? Greedy bastards
18:18. I suspect I know well who you are, and why you speak as you do. Well said - I think we've worked together on other matters regardless of being from different parties.
The free parking thing was supposed to be very limited indeed, but Labour threw their toys out the pram. And free food was also supposed to have been stopped.
Cllr. Janice Long also made a very strong argument why there needs to be much stronger Scrutiny in place at Brent Council, in one of the very few sensible speeches made during the Budget "debate" (so called).
Philip Grant.
I suspect that they have not, but it does exist (they should know this, because they seem to be nodding through amendments to it at almost every Full Council meeting).
As it exists, and is available on the Council's website, I see nothing wrong in drawing their attention to relevant parts of it when this is appropriate. I'm sure that some will continue to "break the rules" that are supposed to govern their conduct, and how the Council's business is managed, but if those "rules" are brought to their attention, at least they can't plead ignorance.
Philip Grant.
Kawala was there but as he is now suspended could he not vote against cuts as a defacto independent?
You would have thought that these free perks for Councillors would have been stopped when they voted themselves a £2,000 (25%) increase in allowances last June.
Philip Grant.
I happened to travel up to the Council meeting in the same lift as Cllr. Van Kalwala. He asked one of his former Labour colleagues where in the Council chamber he should sit for the meeting, and was told "you are sitting with us".
Philip Grant.
As I said in my comment above, whether this item was "urgent business" was entirely a matter for the Mayor. His decision on this was sent to me in an email from Brent's Chief Legal Officer at 6.30pm yesterday evening (when I was already on my way to the Civic Centre). The message (not even copied to the Mayor!) read:
'Councillor Naheerathan has asked me to reply on his behalf. He has considered carefully your request as set out in your email of 26th February 2015 but does not consider that the matter falls within urgent business.'
A similar message from the Chief Legal Officer to Cllr. Warren (which he forwarded to me for information) read:
'Councillor Naheerathan has asked me to reply to state that he has considered the matter fully and does not consider that the matter falls under urgent business.'
Despite the Mayor not considering that a matter which the Council's failure to deal with is clearly adding to the disrepute which the Employment Tribunal judgement has brought the Council into 'falls within urgent business', one item of urgent business was allowed. This was to excuse a Labour councillor from non-attendance at several Council meetings because of his ill health.
You may think that this raises questions about how well the Mayor exercises his discretion. However, there is also the view that the Mayor did not actually exercise his discretion at all. A backbench Labour councillor wrote to me on 26 February, when I forwarded a copy of my "Deputation" text to all councillors, saying that I hoped that Cllr. Butt would be given the opportunity to answer my two questions under "urgent business" at yesterday evening's meeting:
'You have no chance. Kana will do as told, always.'
And so, Cllr. Butt side-steps another attempt to hold him to public account.
Philip Grant.
The whole point of allowances is to cover expenses. And indeed, if they paid parking it could actually be offset against income tax!
Admittedly Van Kalwala may have decided to vote against cuts out of spite against Butt but he's still a member of the pro-austerity Labour Party and an investment banker. I guess that's what won out in the end.
Post a Comment