The Barham Park Trust Committee, made up solely of members of the Brent Cabinet and chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, took just 7 and a half minutes to deal with the CEO's 'High Level' review report into the accounts and the Scrutiny Committee's Report made as a result of the Call-in of the Barham Trust accounts by backbench councillors.
That evening the CEO of Brent attending Scrutiny Commitete seemed reluctanmt (after a slight panic) to reflect on the content of the report when requested by Cllr Anton Georgiou.
Councillor Butt was not paying much attention while the CEO was speaking!
Cllr Butt refused Cllr Georgiou's colleague, Cllr Paul Lorber's request to address the Trustee's at the Barham Park Trust Committee.
This triumph of open government and transparency resulted in the accounts as originally submitted being approved. There was a short reference to the need to collect rents - an issue that Cllr Lorber had first raised as the amounts shown in the accounts was much lesss than the rents due from the occupants of the Barham Park buildings.
The correspondence below speaks for itself - it all took place on January 23rd :
Philip Grant correspondence
This is the text of an email that I sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt just before 5pm today. It was copied to the other four members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, to Brent's Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance, and to Cllr. Lorber:
'Dear Councillor Butt,
I have read online that you have refused a request from Councillor Paul Lorber to speak in respect of items 5 and 6 on the agenda for tomorrow morning's meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. Is this true?
If it is true, I am writing to ask, as a citizen of Brent interested in the workings of democracy, that you change your mind on this, and let Cllr. Lorber know, without delay, that he will be permitted to speak to the committee.
What your Committee has to decide is whether to reconsider its acceptance of the Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts, as it has been requested to do by the Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.
Surely it is right that the Trust Committee hears all sides of this matter, before it makes its decision? That is the essence of openness and transparency in decision making which underpins our democracy.
Not to allow Cllr. Lorber to speak, as long as he does so respectfully, as required by the Members' Code of Conduct, would reflect very badly on Brent Council, and on yourself.
Within 15 minutes of sending the email in "FOR INFORMATION" above, I received the following reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt:
'Dear Mr Grant
Thank you for the email and for trying to make the case.
I respectfully have to say the answer is no and will remain a firm no.
Regards
Muhammed
Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.'
I did not find that a satisfactory response to the points I had made, so I sent the following reply (copied to the same people as my first email) just after 6pm this evening:
'Dear Councillor Butt,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.
As you acknowledge, I made a case for Cllr. Lorber to be allowed to speak at tomorrow's Trust Committee meeting.
You have said that 'the answer is no and will remain a firm no', but you have not explained your reasons for that.
I'm aware from watching previous Council meetings that there is "no love lost" between yourself and the former Lib Dem Leader of Brent Council. However, personal animosity should not influence your actions as Chair of the Trust Committee (if that is a factor in this case).
Have you taken advice from the Corporate Director for Governance over whether to block Cllr. Lorber's request to speak? Although you may have the power, as Chair, to refuse his request, it could be seen as an abuse of power.
Any councillor, and especially a Leader, is expected to demonstrate leadership by example. I have to say that this appears to me, as an independent observer, to set a poor example.
Yours,
Philip Grant.
Further to my two "FOR INFORMATION" comments above, I received the following email from Cllr. Butt at 7pm this evening:
'Thank you, Mr Grant.
I wouldn't describe the sharing of these exchanges to the Green Party blog to be either "independent" nor the definition of the public arena either - but what you do them with is your prerogative.
Cllr Lorber and I perfectly understand one and other, we have been colleagues on different sides of the council chamber for two decades and I am grateful as ever for his continued opinions on the matter, as is his right. It is also perfectly within mine to disagree.
I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute.
Given this is a reference back of a decision called in by Cllr Lorber the meeting will continue as planned.
Best wishes and thank you for your continued interest, please feel free to tune into the next meeting of the next Barham Park Trust meeting.
I wish you all the best and thank you for your continued interest.'
I sent the following reply to the Council Leader at 7.15pm:
'Dear Councillor Butt,
Thank you for your email, and fuller response.
The point I am trying to make is that, although the matter of the accounts has been looked at in various ways, the meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee tomorrow is meant to be reconsidering its original approval of the 2022/23 Annual Report and Accounts, on a referral back from a Scrutiny Committee.
If the Committee is not allowed to hear both sides of the case before making its decision (even though your own mind may already be made up?), that does not reflect well on Brent Council's democratic process. Yours sincerely,
Philip Grant.'
This is the final exchange of emails between Cllr. Butt and myself this evening.
His email highlighted some of its text, and I will put that section in inverted commas:
'Dear Mr Grant
I think you have missed the point that I made to yourself, so I have highlighted it for you for clarity.
"I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute."
I wish you a good evening.'
This was my reply, shortly afterwards:
'Dear Councillor Butt,
Thank you for your email.
I had noted the point you have highlighted, but feel that you are also missing the point.
However, as our exchanges are, unfortunately, getting nowhere, I will also wish you a good evening. Yours,
Philip Grant.'23 January 2024 at 19:46
Paul Lorber correspondence
In my discussions with the Brent Chief Executive and the Brent Director of Finance I made it clear that one of the beneficiaries of the mistakes made by the Trustees and Council Officers was a charity - Friends of Barham Library - of which I was a Trustee. I was urging them to correct their errors in the full knowledge that it will cost Friends of Barham Library money.
One of the material errors made by Council Officers, which the Trustees, including Cllr Butt, failed to spot was the failure to implement Rental reviews as set out om the various Leases between The Barham Park Trust and a number of the organisation (including friends of Barham Library) who rent premises in Barham Park.
What is wrong with the Barham park Trust 2022/23 Account No.5 deals with this point.
While throughout this process Cllr Butt and his fellow Trustees refused to accept that there was anything wrong at precisely 20.11p.m. (some Council Officers do work late) an officer from the Council's Property Department sent me an email to advise me that Friends of Barham Library will be subject to a rent review under the terms of our Lease backdated to October 2021.
I received this email just 36 hours before the Barham Park Trust Meeting due to start at 9:30am on Wednesday 24 January and after Cllr Butt refused my request to speak so that I could explain why the Accounts are wrong and what action was required to correct them.
Brent Council Officers have been charging the wrong rent to one of the tenants in Barham Park since 2019. Friends of Barham Library rent has been wrong since 2021. I have been pointing this out to the Trustees and to Council Officers for a very long time.
Assuming that the other tenant was sent a similar email and demand for back dated rent the Barham Park Trust will be better off by over £18,000.
To date neither Councillor Butt or the Council Officers have had the decency to admit that I was right or to acknowledge that as a result of my actions the Barham Park Trust is at last trying to retrieve some of the losses suffered as a result of their basic mistakes.
In contrast to the Accounts prepared by Council Officers for the Barham Park Trust which are wrong - the Accounts for Friends of Barham Library are correct. We knew what our correct rent should have been since 2021 and provided (accrued) for the extra rent due in our accounts for the last 2 years.
Councillor Butt may ignore the sensible contribution from Philip grant or silence me and others. He cannot hide the fact that he is WRONG and we are RIGHT.
Perseverance pays off (as the belated Council action about the rent reviews highlights) and the fight goes on.
9 comments:
Listening to the Barham Trust meeting I was gobsmacked by the suprise and acknowledgement by Cllr Butt about the rent reviews 3.9 of the report. As for Cllr Tatlers response about how the rent review, does she not know that it is in her portfolios, she is the one responsible for ensuring that rents are collected correctly. This bunch don't know what they are there for.
As for Tatlers reference to Barham being an inportant asset, does she not know that it isn't the council's asset??????
No wonder B~ent is heading for bankuptcy with this lot at the helm.
I have watched and listened to this short meeting several times, and will probably have to spread my response over several "comment" boxes. This is
COMMENT 1:
I think that to understand this Barham Park Trust Committee ("BPTC") meeting properly, we need to go back to the minutes of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee ("RPRSC") call-in meeting last October, which referred the question of the 2022/23 accounts (and annual report) of the Barham Park Trust charity back to the BPTC.
Those minutes say:
'In summarising the discussion, the Chair highlighted that although the Committee had confidence in the professionalism of officer’s work in relation to the accounts and understood the rationale for using a revised accounts template, the Committee’s ability to explore some of the key lines of enquiry had been impacted by not being able to further explore (due to pre-planned leave) the basis of the Independent Examiners opinion on the accounts. It was, however, noted that the concerns raised in relation to the accounts as the basis for the call-in had been challenged by Councillor Tatler (as Vice-Chair of the Trust Committee) and the Deputy Director of Finance at the meeting, with the high-level consultancy-based review commissioned by the Chief Executive relating to the issues and concerns raised about the accuracy of the accounts also to be concluded.
As a result, in considering the options available to the Committee under the call-in process, Members indicated they were minded to refer the decision to approve the accounts back to the Barham Park Trust Committee for reconsideration.'
The RPRSC had not been able to reach a conclusion on whether the accounts were accurate, because they had not been able get answers to key questions. They asked BPTC to reconsider its original decision to approve those accounts, once the High-Level Consultancy Review, commissioned by Brent's Chief Executive, had passed on its findings.
As we've said before detailed records will show who made these poor decisions at Brent
Council and who at Brent
Council treated our vital community assets like disposables to be destroyed and ruined 😡
COMMENT 2:
In presenting her report on the High-Level Consultancy Review to BPTC on 24 January, Brent's Chief Executive, Kim Wright, pointed out the limitations of the scope of that review.
In summary, she told the Committee members that although the Review 'didn't identify any material issues on the accuracy of the accounts', there were 'clearly areas identified which could be dealt with in a clearer and more transparent way.'
It is a requirement of charity accounts (see the Independent Examiner's Statement at the end of the Barham Park Trust 2022-23 Accounts: Supplementary Audit Review) that the accounts and information in them should 'enable a
proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.'
Even in the Chief Executive's own words, the 2022/23 Trust accounts could have been 'clearer and more transparent.' Cllr. Tatler, Cabinet and BPTC finance Lead, when invited by the Chair to say anything (around 5.40 in the webcast), appeared to confirm this when she said she was 'looking forward to setting things out in a clearer way.'
But if future accounts can be set out 'in a clearer way', the big, and unanswered, question is why couldn't the 2022/23 accounts be revised, to enable anyone reading them to reach a proper understanding of the Trust's income and expenditure?
COMMENT 3:
Moving on to the "reconsideration" (which RPRSC had referred the accounts back for) provided at the meeting, Cllr. Butt started off (around 5.05 in the webcast) by saying: 'I think Scrutiny Committee had a good opportunity to review the decision that was taken by BPTC.'
That was not what the RPRSC minutes, which I quoted in Comment 1, said. If they had been able to review the decision properly, they would not have referred it back for reconsideration!
After Cllr. Tatler had spoken, thanking Officers for their work etc., this is a transcript of the next part of the meeting:
Cllr. Butt: 'Trust members - any comments from you guys? [Short silence]
'Right. We have the recommendations - One of the recommendations is that we amend the decision, having taken account of the comments made, or (b) to confirm the original decision made, enabling it to take immediate effect.'
'OK. I'm recommending that we go to 2.1 (b) which is, err, confirm the decision which was taken by the Trust, and to approve the accounts that were put in front of us. Is that ....'
[Here, Cllr. Tatler interrupts]
Cllr. Tatler: 'Can I say that I want to publicly note that I have full confidence in the work that Officers have done in relation to the accounts. We've asked questions in meetings, and its been thoroughly scrutinised by Scrutiny and the Trust about the work we've done on the accounts, and I'm confident about the work they've been doing.'
Cllr. Butt: 'Thank you very much.'
'OK. Can we agree those recommendations, 2.1 (b)?'
[No sound, but a split second later ...]
'Agreed. Thank you very much.'
That actual "reconsideration" took only two minutes of the total seven and a half minutes of this BPTC meeting, much of the two minutes taken by the Chair and Deputy Chair giving a misleading impression that the accounts the meeting had been asked to reconsider by RPRSC had already been fully scrutinised by RPRSC.
Make of that what you will!
Tatler doesn’t have a clue. Scrutiny weren’t able to scrutinise anything and she made sure of that.
Yes Philip, the London Borough of Bent
As I pointed out to the Chief Executive the Accounts are not just about the numbers. Properly prepared Account should tell a story and provide information which can help with decision making.
The Barham Park Trust Accounts do none of that - worse still they hid the truth about the failings of both the Trustees and the Officers. Cllr Tatler's confidence is misplaced in a crude attempt for a Cover up.
I will challenge anyone to look at the figures in the accounts approved by the Trustees and submitted to the Charity Commission and answer the following simple questions:
1. How much did it cost the Barham Park Trust to commission consultants to prepare a "hypothetical" study into the future of the Barham Park Buildings? (These are fees that the trustee were told in 2022 that the trust would not need to pay!)
2. Excluding the Fun Fairs and the Children Centre how much rent for the other 4 tenants occupying the building should the Trust collect and how much rent did it actually receive?
3. How much did the Barham Park Trust incur and pay for water, electricity, gas utility costs, refuse collection and how much of these costs have been recharged to the tenants?
This is basic stuff and this straight forward information should be readily available in any set of charity accounts - except of course those produced by Brent Council and approved by Labour Cabinet members who neither care or have a clue.
Why don't the Accounts show it? Why was I not allowed to speak? Why was their only a "high level" review? Why were the results of that Review not published?
The answer is simple - the accounts have been prepared in a way so that they hide the truth:
1. There has been a failure to collect all the Income to the Barham Park Trust.
2. The Barham Park Trust has been charged expenditure which it was told it would either not have to pay or which should have been recharged to others.
I pointed out to Scrutiny and I made the same point in a written submission to the Trustees before the meeting on 24 January - that at the time the cumulative losses sustained by the Charity amounted to around £100,000.
Has anyone heard either a Brent Council Officer or any of the Trustees dispute this figure?
Why are the Charity Commision not in investigating this?
Post a Comment