Brondesbury Park Conservative ward councillors have tabled the following motion for the full Brent Council Meeting to be held on September 7th 2015:
This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.
This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.
The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........
1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?
2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?
3. What part ,if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?
4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?
5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?
6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?
7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?
8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?
This Council believes this is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry
This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.
This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.
The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........
1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?
2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?
3. What part ,if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?
4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?
5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?
6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?
7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?
8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?
This Council believes this is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry
8 comments:
Can't this simply be vote down? Would like to understand the procedure.
At last some of our councillors are being proactive in this matter
It probably will be voted down, by a block vote of 56 Labour councillors (or however many of them attend the meeting). I suspect the point of the motion is to get the proposal that there needs to be an independent enquiry recorded in the Council's minutes.
Philip Grant.
There are a number of Labour councillors who are also unhappy about what has gone on in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and the way that it is being covered-up. However, they are not (or not yet) prepared to speak out publicly. This is either out of "party loyalty" (which is perhaps misplaced, because what is best for Cllr. Butt may not be what is best for Brent's Labour Group as a whole), or out of fear (because they believe that by condemning the actions of Cara Davani, they are likely to be accused of attacking their Leader as well).
Philip Grant.
Tories fighting racism and corruption. Who'd have thought it.
Should we also be asking:- What part did Andy Potts play in the seedy saga with Cara Davani ... and were the majority of our sleepy elected councillors hoodwinked in the they advice received from the 'sexy couple', who should really be declaring their conflict of interest?
You are right, Anonymous at 23:47, to bring in the name of Andy Potts. Although his involvement may be alluded to in point 2 of the suggested terms of reference in the motion ('Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?'), the conflict of interest point is a key part of this.
As I understand it, Andy Potts was the Senior Employment Lawyer at Brent Council, who was responsible for the handling of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. Although I do not know when his personal relationship with Cara Davani began, they were in a business relationship from 1 April 2013 onwards. As a result of this, he should have disclosed a conflict of interests in any matters relating to Brent's disciplinary action against Rosemarie Clarke, or Ms Clarke's Employment Tribunal claim against Brent and Cara Davani, from 1 April 2013 onwards (as should Ms Davani herself).
The information on their business relationship is publicly available from the Companies House website*, in respect of Kebulak Show Dogs LLP (registered number: OC372549). This “company” is actually a limited liability partnership (a vehicle usually used by large professional partnerships such as the big law and accountancy firms) which has LLP Designated Members ("members") instead of shareholders and directors. The records show that it was set up in February 2012, with Ms Davani and her then husband, Professor David John Muller, as its members. Dr Muller resigned as a member on 1 April 2013, and Andrew Robert Potts (born 1 April 1972) was appointed as a member on the same day.
The most recent accounts of Kebulak Show Dogs LLP, to 31 March 2014, do not show very much in the way of business activities, although it did receive loans of around £73,800 (almost certainly from Ms Davani's company, Cara Davani Ltd, which had an almost identical figure for debtors in its accounts to 31 March 2014 - also publicly available from the Companies House website*, under registered number 06413934). Most of the money loaned to the LLP, around £65,600, had been "borrowed" by its members. These financial arrangements could be seen as a tax avoidance device, both to delay payment of tax and to save Ms Davani from having to pay higher rate income tax, and some national insurance contributions, on amounts paid by Brent Council to her personal company for her services as Head of HR up to 31 March 2013.
However, that is a side issue. There WAS a conflict of interests over any matters involving both Brent's top HR officer and its Senior Employment Lawyer that occurred from 1 April 2013 onwards, and if that conflict of interest was not disclosed by both of them in relation to the Rosemarie Clarke case, then that was a serious breach of conduct which does need to be taken into account, and its effects on actions taken in the name of Brent Council investigated, in any enquiry.
Philip Grant.
*beta.companieshouse.gov.uk
The sexy couple's twins were born on 7th June 2014 - it is therefore evident that their relationship started 9 months or more before that date.
Post a Comment