Philip Grant added a comment to a previous blog yesterday which contains
some new information about the likely “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani. So
that all Wembley Matters readers are aware of this new development, I am
posting his comment here as a separate guest blog:-
Despite a reminder to Christine
Gilbert this afternoon (Friday Aigust 7th) that I was expecting her reply 'by the end of this
week', I have not heard anything further from her, and so am still waiting for
her answers to my two simple "yes" or "no" questions. See LINK if you
don't know what these are.
Cllr. Warren copied to me an email
he sent to Brent's Chief Legal Officer on Wednesday, referring to my email
above of 3 August and supporting the arguments I had made. Calling for
Christine Gilbert or Fiona Alderman to provide the answers to my questions, he
said: 'It cannot be right to deny both Members and Brent Council tax payers
such basic information.' Ms Alderman copied to me her acknowledgement, saying
that she would reply to Cllr. Warren shortly, but if she has replied, I am not
aware of what she has said.
I can now say for certain that
there WAS an agreement between Brent Council and Cara Davani. Some WM readers
have said that the continued mantra from Ms Gilbert, Ms Alderman and Cllr. Butt
of: ‘The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements
relating to Ms Davani’s departure,’ meant that there must have been
"arrangements". They were right.
A reliable source has now told me
that when she left Brent in June 'both Cara Davani and the Council signed an
agreement. One clause of this restricted either party from disclosing the
details of the agreement.' So much for openness and transparency! Both parties
had something to hide, so they both agreed to hide it.
Despite this, it is NOT the
details of the agreement that my two questions are asking for, so there is no
valid reason why Christine Gilbert should refuse to answer them. It seems
highly likely that the agreement involved some financial benefit to Ms Davani,
so that the answer to at least one of the questions must be "no". In
that case, Christine Gilbert also needs to tell Brent's councillors, its staff
and its residents what the justification is for the Council giving that
financial benefit to Cara Davani, so that councillors in particular can satisfy
themselves that this is not a misuse of Council funds.
24 comments:
Perhaps the police should be brought in, as they were in Tower Hamlets, to investigate Brent Council a “rotten borough” that is facing allegations of cronyism, corruption as well as racism, bullying, harassment!
Exactly, seen as she was found guilty by the tribunal, if Brent had done it's duty and sacked her, Brent's residents would not have had to pay for her to leave. Looks like she did to herself what she did to numerous staff, called them into her office told them they were no longer needed got them to sign papers then they were no longer Brent staff, they couldn't talk about it and then she went and replaced them. The rumor around Brent when I was there in 2012 was that if you wanted to get rid of someone just tell Davani the person's name and they were gone. Brent Council has never seen so many disciplinaries against staff, surely staff's time could be better spent doing their jobs instead of having to be investigating many trumped charges agasinst other staff. My my my how the once reputable, decent Brent has now fallen. Butt should be thoroughly ashamed.
Davani and Potts most probably drafted the terms of the compromise agreements.
It may be interesting to find out how many staff disciplinarians there were in CD's time, what was the nature of the disciplinaries were, who investigated them and whether she, Potts, and any of her other Cronies, including SM of Bloomsbury Resoursing, played any part in the process of getting rid of staff.
You seem to know a lot and have personal experience. Please use it positively by informing your councillors or Philip or Martin so it can help build the case against paying Davani for her incompetence.
If the Cllr's really cared they would have a vote of no confidence in the loner Butt and actively do something about the tainted legal direction from Potts & Co.
Before the police can become involved, there needs to be at least the prospect that a criminal offence has been committed. Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical example:-
Suppose that at a local authority ("A") a politician ("B") was assisted to do something improper by a council officer ("C"). That improper act by B, aided and abetted by C, might itself amount to a criminal act (misconduct in a public office), and even if it was not criminal, if it became public knowledge it could end B's political career.
While they were both in positions of authority, B and C could offer each other mutual protection, with B safe in the knowledge that his secret would not be exposed, as long as s/he allowed C to do what s/he liked within A.
Suppose, however, that the relationship of mutual self-interest between B and C had to come to an end, with the imminent arrival of a new senior officer ("D"). C might have to leave A, but as s/he still had that knowledge of B's improper action, some arrangement relating to C's departure would be necessary to ensure that this continued to remain secret.
If B offered C a payment, to be made by A, for C to keep quiet, that would be bribery, a criminal offence. If C said that s/he would expose B's improper action, unless A made a payment, that would be blackmail, a criminal offence. But remember, this is merely a hypothetical example.
In conclusion, unless there is reasonable evidence of a criminal offence, there is little point in involving the police. If anyone reading this does have evidence of a criminal offence in this case, they should make it public, otherwise they themselves are aiding and abetting an offender, and putting themselves at risk of a criminal offence. If there is evidence, then 'perhaps the police should be brought in'.
Philip Grant.
There are a lot of us out there now who have information relating to her behaviour. She dictated to managers, overruled their decisions and behaved like a megalomaniac. I've never seen anything like it.
Davani left end of June so she would already have been paid..... mid July
Dear Anonymous at 13:46, and those in the same position as you:
If you have information of this sort (or any evidence of possible criminal activity in this case), and can honestly put your name to it, then please make it publicly available. You can send it to Martin (email address in the right-hand column, under the heading "Guest Blogs"), and I am sure he will forward it to me, to use for legitimate purposes. Thank you.
Philip Grant.
The police should get involve, why should they not get involved?.
Just for information - Cllr. Kansagra, official Leader of the Opposition on Brent Council, has also written to Christine Gilbert to request that she answers my two questions. As yet, however, still no answers. Such is the respect (or lack of it) that Ms Gilbert appears to have for her responsibilities, despite the £191k annual salary that Brent pays her.
Philip Grant.
Although Christine Gilbert likes to accept the 'big bucks' she has really let Brent down. She has been such a poor leader she should be ashamed of herself. Let's hope she doesn't get such a high profile job ever again. She has shown contempt, along with her Tower Hamlet / Ofsted Cronies, on countless occasions by ignoring the concerns of staff, elected councillors and local residents. The sooner she leaves the better!
I have just received a copy of the reply from the Chief Executive's Office to Cllr. Kansagra:-
'Dear Councillor Kansagra,
Christine is on annual leave.
I have passed your email onto Fiona Alderman who has been in touch with Mr Grant last week.'
Christine Gilbert had plenty of time to answer my questions before she went on annual leave (I asked them on 9 July). And does that mean Fiona Alderman will now actually send the reply to the two questions on Christine Gilbert's behalf, or is it just another delaying tactic?
I will let Wembley Matters readers know when I find out.
Philip.
While we're waiting, I think we should celebrate the promptness, conscientiousness, honesty, clarity, transparency, candour, frankness, veracity, genuineness and plain honest-to-goodness integrity of Christine's so-far-unwritten written reply to Philip. 'Outstanding' and 'excellent' are words which are bandied about far too freely these days especially in relation to events which are yet to happen. However, in this case I think we can all agree that they will be thoroughly deserved.
£191,000 pa? Cheap at the price!
Mike Hine
I'm sorry to be pedantic, Mike, but Christine's salary is actually £191,159 pa, plus the fee she receives for being Brent's Returning Officer.
Philip.
Christine Gilbert has in the past expressed concern that standards of reading and writing among many 11-year-olds fell "stubbornly short" of achievable levels. It's a bit worrying that she has taken so long to read and write a response to your letter, Phillip - especially if she is on £191,159 +!?
Let's be positive, Philip, and give a vote of thanks from Brent taxpayers for whoever it was who haggled her down from £191, 250.
I wonder whether Christine Gilbert is being enjoying her annual leave. Perhaps she is taking advice from her partner, former minister Tony McNulty who admitted he should have had "much more concern" for how his expense claims were viewed by the public. It was reported that the Commons standards and privileges committee ruled that he had to repay £13,837 which he claimed for a second-home expenses on a house where his parents lived, and he was told he should issue an apology. It's a shame Brent Council haven't got a Commons standards and privileges committee (made up of local people) to scrutinise internal wrong-doing within the Council.
Let's hope Christine Gilbert has been advised to take her annual leave & never return to Brent again.
Further to my comment of 11 August at 14:20, and "reply" to it at 16:48, above:-
I have had a response from Fiona Alderman, but not (surprise?) a reply to the two questions. I will let Martin have a "guest blog" on this later, in the interests of openness and transparency.
Philip Grant.
Perhaps official complaints should be made about this matter and depending on the outcome residents may wish to consider asking the local government ombudsman to investigate further.
THE STORY CONTINUES ... at:
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/brent-council-same-two-questions-why-no.html
Philip.
I have heard, unofficially, that outside lawyers negotiated the arrangements under which Cara Davani left the Council, on her behalf. I hope that Brent's Council Tax payers did not pick up her lawyers' bill as well!
Philip Grant.
Post a Comment