Philip Grant wondered if Wembley Matters readers could stand another posting on 'The Two Questions' when he submitted this guest blog. One of Brent Council's strategies is to continue to stonewall until complainants give up. Philip's persistence is admirable and should be supported.
Email from Fiona Alderman, sent at around 10pm on Wednesday 12 August 2015:-
Email from Philip Grant, sent at around 5.30pm on Thursday 13 August 2015:-
Some “Wembley Matters” readers
have been following the saga of my two questions to Christine Gilbert about the
probable “pay off” by Brent Council to its former Director of HR, Cara Davani,
and the explanations given as to why she cannot answer them. This is the latest
round. Anyone who wishes to see the earlier rounds can find them at LINK and LINK and LINK .
If you are interested enough to
read the exchange of emails below, I would welcome your comments. Are the
reasons given by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer reasonable? Even if you think they
are not, do you feel that I should give up now, and let those at the top of the
Council get away with what appears to be a cover-up? Or do you support my
efforts to get to the bottom of this matter? If the latter, then please show your support, not
just by adding a comment below, but by emailing your local councillors to say
that Brent must answer Philip Grant’s two questions, and explain why it
believes that any “pay off” to Cara Davani is justified, and not a misuse of
funds that the Council should be spending instead on services for local people.
Thank you.
THIS IS A LINK TO COUNCILLOR TELEPHONE AND EMAIL DETAILS
THIS IS A LINK TO COUNCILLOR TELEPHONE AND EMAIL DETAILS
Email from Fiona Alderman, sent at around 10pm on Wednesday 12 August 2015:-
Dear Mr GrantI am replying to your recent correspondence to the Chief Executive and myself.It is accepted that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.I will provide a copy of this response to Councillors Warren and Kansagra.RegardsFiona AldermanChief Legal Officer
Email from Philip Grant, sent at around 5.30pm on Thursday 13 August 2015:-
Dear Ms Alderman,
Further to my acknowledgement of the email which you sent me yesterday evening, I am now writing to reply to the latest reasons you have given for Brent Council not answering the two questions which I put to Christine Gilbert on 9 July 2015.
My questions were raised in the context of serious concerns which many local people, including Council staff, expressed when rumours emerged two months ago that Cara Davani was to receive a “pay off” from Brent. The Council had announced that she was leaving at the end of June, to take a “career break”, so there appeared to be no reason why she should receive any further financial benefit. She was already a controversial figure, who many thought should have resigned when her actions against Rosemarie Clarke in 2013 became public knowledge, through the publication in September 2014 of the Employment Tribunal judgement. It seemed inexplicable that Brent appeared to have taken no disciplinary action against her then for gross misconduct.
The possibility that Cara Davani might also be “rewarded” when she finally did leave the Council generated those serious concerns, and I sought answers from Christine Gilbert to find out whether the rumours were true, and if so, what was the justification for any such “pay off”. Those are still the matters which need to be resolved, and they will not be resolved by the Council continuing to be evasive over providing the answers. I realise that you are probably only carrying out the wishes of those above you in trying to defend that prevarication, and I will explain now why the reasons you have given do not stand up, by reference to the questions that I still believe Brent must answer.
1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council's employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015? YES or NO.
You have said:
‘It is accepted that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.’
It is already in the public domain that Cara Davani, former Director of HR and Administration, left the Council at the end of June 2015, and that there was an agreement with her, even though ‘the council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure’, which are presumably contained in that agreement. By simply answering “yes” or “no” to my question 1. above, the Council would not be breaching any ‘reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence’ that Ms Davani might have, especially given the context of this matter as outlined above (which I believe does provide ‘an overriding public interest justification’).
As I have said before, to Christine Gilbert, if the honest answer to question 1 is “yes” (i.e. that there was no financial payment other than her normal salary up to 30 June 2015), that is the end of that matter. However, if the answer is “no”, then Ms Gilbert does need to explain what justification there is for having made an additional payment (even if the amount of any such payment can only be given, in confidence, to those Council staff and councillors who need to know it). If the Council cannot show that there is a valid justification for any additional payment to Ms Davani, then such a payment could be a misuse of Council funds, and should be open to public challenge. That consideration must surely override the “privacy” of a person who may have received such a payment.
2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties? YES or NO.
I have already dealt with your ‘expectation of privacy and confidence’ point above, but you also say:
‘In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.’
I thought that I had already covered this point in my email to you and Christine Gilbert on 3 August, making clear that the fact that the remedies hearing has not yet been finalised does not prevent Ms Gilbert from answering my second question. However, I will spell it out again here.
If the Council has not agreed, and will not agree (as it should not, for the reasons below), to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “yes”, and that is the end of the matter.
If the Council has agreed to fund all or any part of any award which the Tribunal may make against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “no”. The question is not asking for any amounts, so it does not matter that those are ‘not yet determined’.
I accept that the Tribunal has not yet made any awards in this case, but given its findings in favour of Rosemarie Clarke in the judgement of September 2014, it is likely to make awards at the remedies hearing. It may decide to make its awards solely against the first respondent, the London Borough of Brent, the employer. However, as Cara Davani is a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal proceedings, it is open to the Tribunal to make an award against her personally. If it does that, it will be doing so on the basis of its findings of fact, after reading and hearing detailed evidence.
In these circumstances, I believe that it would be wrong, and a misuse of Council funds, if Brent were to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally. That is why it is important that my second question is answered, and answered now, so that if the honest answer is “no” Ms Gilbert can explain why she, or whoever on behalf of the Council agreed such an arrangement, considers that it is justified for Brent to pay any such awardI am sure that the Tribunal will only make an award against Ms Davani personally, if it does make such an award, if it believes that award reflects her own liability on the facts of the case, and not that of the Council. Surely it is right that councillors and the public should be able to challenge any possible misuse of Council funds. To conceal the facts, when they have been openly requested, in a way that does not require the Council to breach its secrecy agreement with Ms Davani over the details, just as surely cannot be right.
I am copying this email to Cllr, Kansagra and Cllr. Warren, and will forward a copy to the other councillors who were copied into my previous correspondence with Ms Gilbert on this matter. I will also make it publicly available, as I informed you this morning.
In conclusion, I hope that you will now provide the two “yes” or “no” answers to my two questions. If you do not feel you can do so in Ms Gilbert’s absence, please confirm that you will advise her to provide the answers on her return from annual leave, and let me know, please, when that is expected to be. Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
21 comments:
Mr Grant is excellent! Never bored of people holding the council to scrutiny! Keep at it! Have you contacted a) the ombudsmen for councils and b) the information commisioner as this is clearly in the public interest.
Ms Alderman's last paragraph sounds fudged! Not surprising though as it is suspected to be highly tainted as she is covering for her cronies. Butt (whoops!), yes, methinks Phillip should take this matter further - through the Council's complaints procedure and if necessary the local government ombudsmen; also the information commissioner.
This a continuing matter of public interest and there is no reason to neglect it just because those involved not surprisingly don't want it to be seen as such.
How long did Hillsborough take? Or the Stephen Lawrence case? Or the various fit-ups of Irishmen in the 70s and 80s? The authorities wanted those people to 'give up' too. And lots of people got 'bored' with those cases as well but they soon got interested again when the nature of the corruption became apparent. Interested enough in one case to make a film, In the Name of the Father, about it. Who knows........?
Would it be possible to supply a list of councillors' email addresses to make writing to them easier?
Mike Hine
Maybe this is a bit premature, but any ideas for casting? Sanjeev Bhaskar for Butt? Katherine Tate for Ms Gilbert........Other parts?........ pity Hattie Jacques is no longer with us
My understanding re the amount of any payoff is that when a CEO leaves, say, a major bank, the amount becomes public knowledge. Maybe that is in the interests of 'keeping shareholders on board' as it indicates some 'transparency'.
Brent Council, in proferring 'confidentiality' as grounds for not disclosing the amount of any such payment to Ms C Davani, seems to me to be saying, "Council Tax payers have no right to know how much of their money is lavished on former staff in such settlements.
I shall forward link to this blog piece to Kilburn Unemployed group members so that those who live in LB Brent can add their comments.
Dude Swheatie of Kwug
Martin has a link, "Contact your Brent councillor or MP", near the top of the right-hand column on this "Wembley Matters" blog, although I did find it a bit slow when I tried to check if the link worked. (I think it was Brent's own website running slowly.)
Here is the page address for Brent's councillors, by Ward:
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=WARD&VW=LIST&PIC=0
If you go to that page, and scroll down to the three councillors who represent the Ward you live in, you can get their email address, and other contact details, by "clicking" on the name beneath each councillor's photograph. Usually, the email address is in this format (using Cllr. Butt of Tokyngton Ward as an example):
cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk
I hope that this helps!
Philip.
KUWG may not see Cllr. John Warren (Brondesbury Park Conservative) as a natural ally, but he agrees with your second paragraph. When writing to Christine Gilbert and Fiona Alderman on 5 August, asking for answers to my two questions to be made public, he said:
'It cannot be right to deny both Members and Brent Council tax payers such basic information.'
Philip Grant.
Great work Philip, I doubt that we Wembley Matters readers could ever be bored with the Council being held to account, so do keep at them on our behalf.
I find it interesting that Cllr Butt fails to take his own legal director's advice -
".........., the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage."
And yet the man feels able to put out into the public domain, misinformation about Rosemarie Clarke (see earlier blog at the start of August).
It appears that whilst the legal department's view is that "individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence" this manages only to apply to Davani and not to Rosemarie. Once again, the council is committing racial discrimination by way of difference in treatment based on race. Clearly then, no lessons learnt from the Tribunal judgement. Then again, Cllr B has expressed the view that this difference-in-treatment type of discrimination is a mere technicality...........
Thought Ms Alderman would have replied, Potts 'n' Potts of money!
I have also added a link to the end of Philip's article.
Seems like a reasonable point Nan has here - committing racial discrimination by way of difference in treatment based on race - Also Christine Gilbert will be long gone before there is a determined of any compensation award- Hope Philip you continue to pursue - great job.
When are you going to start writing the script, Mike!? 😊
Letter to my ward councillors.
Dear Councillor,
Compromise agreement between Brent Council and its former Director of HR, Cara Davani
I am writing to you in your capacity as my ward councillor on the above matter of public interest.
I am also writing to you because I believe that as an elected councillor, you have a personal responsibility to uphold the highest standards of conduct in public office and to challenge without fear or favour, behaviours and actions that bring the council into disrepute.
A fellow Brent resident, Philip Grant, has raised some legitimate questions with Brent Council. These questions have effectively been brushed off by Chief Executive Christine Gilbert and legal director, Fiona Alderman for spurious reasons.
In short I too, wish to have confirmed officially that Ms Davani left the council under the terms of a compromise agreement that would have (a) guaranteed her a payment over and above the normal salary payments due to her and (b) provided her with a reference sufficient to satisfy a future employer that Ms Davani's conduct in her Brent role had been beyond reproach.
This question requires a YES or NO answer. It does not require the disclosure of details of the amounts paid nor does it require details of what was actually said in the reference. A simple YES or NO to the question is all that is being asked.
I also wish to have confirmed whether or not Brent Council has agreed to pay on behalf of Ms Davani, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against her personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties? This question simply requires a YES or NO answer.
I am sure you will recognise that Brent residents do have a legitimate interest in finding out whether the council has chosen effectively to reward an officer who has brought the council into disrepute in the manner cited unequivocally by the Watford Employment Tribunal Judgement, namely by victimising and racially discriminating against a fellow council officer.
I am sure you will agree that the above information should be rightfully in the public domain and that you will pursue vigorously, the answers to the questions put.
Yours faithfully,
Nan Tewari
I wonder whether it isn't time to say that Butt and Gilbert have had their chance to deny what everyone knows know to be the facts and to just proceed on the basis that silence (or timewasting and refusal to respond) is confirmation of what we all know. They haven't actively confirmed that Philip's suspicions are correct but by their prevarication and refusal to face their responsibilities to their electors and paymasters they might as well have done.
In which case why not move on to the next stage? Leave them behind, they can catch up later. Their silence speaks volumes to any objective observer. Spread the word and let them realise that they need to come up with some sort of narrative of their own if they want to retain any kind of credibility.
Mike Hine
Well said, Mike!
I think their narrative was Cllr Butt's statement, Mike. Be interesting to see what they come up with under further pressure..........
On the experience of the past ten months, Nan, Cllr. Butt probably won't come up with anything.
He has not replied to any emails I have sent him (apart from automatic acknowledgements, which thank me for my email and say that he will reply!). It is almost as if he regards any email from me as carrying the caution: 'Anything you say may be used in evidence ....' I wonder why?
Philip.
Nice one, Nan! Can I copy the gist of your letter and send it to my ward councillors?
Absolutely - please do!
Someone should explain to him, however, that as head of a democratically elected local authority he does not have 'the right to remain silent'.
Ms Alderman, tell the alderman, please.
Mike Hine
UPDATE:
One week on, and still no reply, so I have sent the following email at 7pm today:-
Dear Ms Alderman (and Ms Gilbert),
I am sorry to have to pester you again about this matter, but I have not heard from you in reply to my email of 13 August.
I am sure that you realise that there is no valid reason why Ms Gilbert should not answer the two questions I first put to her six weeks ago. Her continued reluctance to give those simple "yes" or "no" answers, and to explain the justification for any such "pay off" to Cara Davani if either or both of the answers is "no", can only fuel speculation that she is trying to conceal some impropriety.
It would be unfair of Ms Gilbert to leave this matter unresolved, so that her successor, Carolyn Downes, has to "pick up the pieces" when she takes up the post of Brent's Chief Executive on 7 September. It needs to be dealt with now.
In these circumstances, I look forward to receiving the answers to my two questions without further delay, with copies to the two Group Leaders and to the individual Labour councillors who I know have either written or spoken to Ms Gilbert to urge her to respond transparently to my questions. Thank you.
Philip Grant.
FURTHER UPDATE:
After another week, and still no reply from either Christine Gilbert or Fiona Alderman, I sent a email to the Chief Legal Officer giving written notice that I wish to present a Deputation to Brent's Full Council meeting on Monday 7 September, which will include my two questions and seek answers to them.
The story continues at:
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/cara-davani-will-brents-full-council.html
Philip Grant.
Post a Comment