Wednesday 6 April 2016

Pavey throws off his shackles to make frank presentation on HR to Scrutiny Committee

When Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent Council, stood to present the report on the progress of the recommendations made in his review of Brent Human Relations, there were none of the usual officers present at his elbow who normally support lead members at meetings. Noting this Pavey said that the report had been tabled without the final version being given to him for his approval.

He went on to say that  he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.

The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK)  that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,

He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case.  This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda.  He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely  to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'

Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings.  He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review.  The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff  in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.

Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained.  Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat  as a method would not work.  Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice'  but he would take back the wider issue to HR.

Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.

A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.

Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.

Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.

He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:
'Without question Brent is a fairer, more inclusive, more rewarding employer than when we lost the tribunal which triggered this work.'

Cara Davani with Council Leader Muhammed Butt
NOTE: It is work noting that Michael Pavey was not the only person who was affected by attempts to limit discussion of the Davani case. Philip Grant was particularly active in seeking answers to key questions and was not allowed to raise the issue at a previous Scrutiny Committee LINK

Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.

Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.










24 comments:

Anonymous said...

So here we go then. Finally someone with a bit of integrity and backbone has emerged to challenge that odious creature Mo Butt.

We wish him well...

Anonymous said...

'The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed.......staff members should use the Council's whistle blowing policy.'

That should reassure them,then.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't exactly been what you'd call proactive about it, has he? Where has Pavey been for the last x years that all this was going on? Oh that's right, smack in the middle of it keeping his head down, his mouth shut, his powder dry, his principles anaesthetised and his vertebrae in the fridge for possible use at some later opportunity.

He's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty Butt-in-waiting.

Anonymous said...

If you knew your Tolkien, you would know that a wizard is never late, nor is he early.

He arrives precisely when he means to...

Philip Grant said...

I am pleased to note that Cllr. Pavey, very belatedly, accepts that his review was not allowed to do its job properly. I had several exchanges of emails with him in the autumn of 2014 about the need for his review to learn the lessons from the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case (which it was claimed, by the then interim Chief Executive, was the reason why the review was set up!).

In particular, I put it to both Cllr. Butt and Cllr. Pavey that Brent's appeal against the Tribunal judgement, for which there were no legal grounds, should be dropped, and the key issues of alleged bullying, harassment, victimisation and racial discrimination from that case, and any others where such allegations had been raised, should be looked at by Cllr. Pavey's review team. Cllr. Pavey told me, in early November 2014, that:
'There are extremely important lessons for the Council to learn from this matter. I am adamant that my review gets to the bottom of them and makes robust recommendations to enable real change.'

However, he then told me that, under the terms of reference for his review, he was not allowed to look at the details of the Rosemarie Clarke case, or any other case, saying:
'I understand your position but have to emphasise that the terms of reference for my review do not include considering the decision to appeal, or indeed considering any individual HR cases. The review is into the policies and practices of the Council. I will be leading the review in a considered and (constructively) challenging way, but we won't be going outside our terms of reference.'

Those terms of reference were almost certainly drawn up by the then interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, a close associate of Cara Davani (whose victimisation of Rosemarie Clarke was at the heart of the Employment Tribunal case) and herself "found guilty" in the Tribunal's judgement of breaches of Brent's HR policies which directly lead to the Tribunal's finding that Brent had "constructively dismissed" Ms Clarke.

Christine Gilbert therefore had a conflict of interests over the Rosemarie Clarke case (which I had tried to point out to Scrutiny Committee, and had pointed out to Cllrs Butt and Pavey, as well as to the interim Chief Executive herself, in early November 2014), and should not have been allowed to be involved in drawing up the terms of reference for Cllr. Pavey's review.

Others who may also have been consulted on the terms of reference, but with clear conflicts of interest which would have meant that they wished details of the Rosemarie Clarke case to be excluded from Cllr. Pavey's review, were Cara Davani (Director of HR, and villain of the case), Fiona Ledden (Brent's Legal Director, who almost certainly gave false evidence to the Tribunal) and Andy Potts (Senior Employment Lawyer, "architect" of the false case against Rosemarie Clarke, and Cara Davani's partner).

Continued below:-

Philip Grant said...

Comment continues:-

IF Cllr. Pavey had taken up this matter, and sought to be allowed to look at individual HR cases as part of the terms of reference of his review, there is only one person whose support he would have needed to get those terms changed. That is the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Muhammed Butt. But Cllr. Butt almost certainly had a conflict of interests of his own - why else would he have ignored, and avoided answering (on several occasions in February and March 2015) this important question which I put to him both publicly and privately:
'Why is Cllr. Butt still “protecting” these two senior officers [Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert], when he has known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?'

And the final conflict of interest in this matter? The officer who wrote the report on Cllr. Pavey's review, which went to Scrutiny Committee yesterday evening without being referred to and "signed off" by Cllr. Pavey himself, was Mildred Phillips. It was she (then as an "interim", brought into Brent's HR department by Cara Davani) who was appointed (in February 2013) to conduct the investigation into Ms Davani's allegation of gross misconduct against Rosemarie Clarke. She "discovered" and made further allegations of misconduct against Rosemarie Clarke, and found her "guilty" of all charges, even though the Employment Tribunal found all of the allegations to be without substance, and part of Brent's victimisation of Ms Clarke.

No wonder that Cllr. Pavey told Scrutiny Committee:'that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to "roam freely to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret".' I only wish that he had had the courage to stand up to Cllr. Butt and Christine Gilbert at the time, because the things 'that some wanted to keep secret' are still being covered up by Brent Council. How can anyone have confidence that the Council has really moved on from the dark days of the Davani / Gilbert era, when it is still in denial about the wrongs committed then?

Philip.

Anonymous said...

My sources are questioning why Pavey has not yet declared his intention to challenge Butt for the leadership.

Direct quote from a councillor:
"If he can't be bothered to declare and canvass for my support by now I'm not sure he has the guts to be a decent leader".

Philip Grant said...

Perhaps he is hoping that Sadiq Khan will win the London Mayoral election, and will then appoint Cllr. Butt as one of his Deputy Mayors, thus creating a possible vacancy for Leader of the Council, so that he doesn't have to make a direct challenge to Mo the Incumbent?

Has anyone had the guts yet to declare that they will challenge for the Leadership of Brent Labour and the Council, or are they all still acting as Cllr. Butt's "silent majority"?

Philip.

Philip Grant said...

Does anyone know who has been appointed as Brent's new Director of HR (interviews were supposed to be held on 24 March), in succession to Cara Davani and her interim replacement, Mildred Phillips?

Martin Francis said...

I understand confirmation of acceptance of the post by successful candidate is awaited. It is not Ms Phillips

Anonymous said...

Excellent summary and conclusion, Philip. Plenty of opportunities for Pavey to have let loyalty to integrity and principle guide him rather than loyalty to a number of shyster careerists and lying incompetents.
Self-serving and weak I'm afraid.

Mike Hine

Alison Hopkins said...

I think you're spot on Philip. It's been an open secret for a long time that Khan has Butt lined up for a job. More Brent Labour corruption.

There's damn few of them with a shred of decency and even fewer that do any work in their wards, or are ever seen there. (I would cite John Duffy and Rita Conneely as honourable exceptions, as was Tayo.)

Anonymous said...

Please tell me this isn't true. I will seriously consider not voting for Sadiq Khan if he's prepared to associate himself with shysters like Butt and I'll let other Labour voters who have no knowledge of Butt know the reasons why.
Goldsmith's campaign is run by that Aussie yob who has so far only attempted to smear Sadiq Khan with sharing a platform in the late 20th century with Sepp Blatter, Pol Pot and Fred and Rosemary West. Wait til he finds out that Mo Butt is a mate.

Mike Hine

Anonymous said...

You're right that Butt has a job lined up with Sadiq but Pavey is going to have to show some guts. The Labour group AGM is scheduled for the weekend after the mayoral election and if Sadiq loses and Butt's job chances go down the drain it will be too late for Pavey to mount an effective chalkenge.

Maybe Pavey is thinking he will only take the leadership if he's anointed by Butt, but won't make a direct challenge?

Alison Hopkins said...

Mike, I was told by current Labour councillors that Butt had a job lined up.

Anonymous said...

Suddenly Zac Goldsmith looks like a beacon of rectitude ........

Anonymous said...

If Butt had a job with Khan lined up, why would he be lobbying so hard to stay on as leader?

Martin said...

Presumably he's not counting his chickens before they're hatched. Don't discount the outer-London doughbut ring. Snd of course Khan may have promised a lot of people all sorts of things to get support.

Martin said...

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/is-this-beginning-of-end-of-brent.html

Alison Hopkins said...

Exactly so, Martin. I doubt Butt would want to drop back from £50K a year as leader to £10K as a backbencher. He'd be very unlikely to get a job back at BT.

Philip Grant said...

Thank you, Martin, for your blog confirming that David Veale (currently Assistant Director of HR at Ealing Council) has been appointed. Thanks also to the Wembley Matters reader who shared the Brent Council intranet news item with you, and with me.

What a relief that, from July, Brent's top HR person will be neither Cara Davani, nor a close associate of hers!

Philip.

Martin Francis said...

The Council's official version is in Kilburn Times http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/brent_council_appoints_a_third_new_director_1_4486520

Anonymous said...

Sadiq wont win given he is to the right of Goldsmith.

Anonymous said...

Strangely, life long Labour supporting friends are voting for Goldsmith as they see him as more left wing than Sadiq - due to his attitudes with business and towards Corbyn.