Both the Barham Park Trust Committee and the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meet on Wednesday January 24th. The former includes the 'High Level Review' of the Barham Park accounts promised by Kim Wright, Brent's new CEO at the special call-in Scrutiny Commitee held on October 26th to consider issues around the accounts (Minutes of the meeting).
Extract from CEO's Report LINK:
I am satisfied that the objectives and scope which I set for the review have been met. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the review did not identify any material issues relating to the accuracy of the accounts. However, there have been areas identified where the accounts could be presented in a more clear and transparent way moving forward. This is particularly in the way rental income is presented and how the netting off of income and expenditure is shown.
3.9 There were also some helpful observations made regarding operational practices concerning the running of the Trust which could impair, or be perceived to impair, the Council’s arm’s length relationship with the Trust. In particular:
1. The trust not having its own bank account (up until recently);
2. The award and management of NCIL funds for park improvements being managed by the Council;
3. A lack of rent reviews undertaken by the Trust owing to the ongoing feasibility study commissioned by the Council;
4. Cash advances being paid to the Trust for rents overdue.
3.10 I have discussed these actions and observations with the appropriate officers, and all have agreed to implement the actions. In addition, whilst the rationale for the practices set out at 3.9 is clear existing practices are neither improper nor have any impact on the accuracy of the accounts, I have asked officers to review its management of the Trust to ensure that appropriate segregation and separation is in place where appropriate to clearly distinguish between activities of the Council and activities of the Trust,
Cllr Paul Lorber, one of the councillors instigating the Call-in is not satisfied and requested to speak at the Barham Park Trust meeting. The chair of the Trust, and leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt refused his request.
Cllr Lorber then wrote to all Brent councillors making his case:
Dear Colleagues
If you see mistakes and wrong doing you should never be afraid to speak up. You should also not allow yourself to be fobbed off.
At successive meetings of the Barham Park Trust I highlighted the errors in the presented 2022/23 Accounts. The 1st version of the accounts went to a meeting on 5 September and had to be withdrawn at the last minute. The revised accounts presented to a reconvened meeting on 26 September did not make much sense either.
At a subsequent meeting of the Scrutiny Meeting I made the point that those misleading and inaccurate accounts hide the truth of how the Barham Park Trust Charity financial affairs have been mismanaged - making the point that the mismanagement has cost the Charity around £100,000 - with on going losses going forward.
You will see from the Agenda of a reconvened Barham Park Trust Meeting that the Chief Executive commissioned a “high-level consultancy based review” relating to the concerns and issues raised.
The Chief Executive then explains that the review was NOT intended to do - it “was only ever limited to a narrow scope…”
The aim of “high level reviews” “of limited scope” should be obvious - not to uncover anything embarrassing and to protect senior Councillors and officers of the Council at all costs.
The Barham Park Trust Charity exists because 87 years ago a resident of Sudbury donated his home and gardens for the enjoyment of local people in our area.
He entrusted the management of his gift to the local Council - first Wembley BC and later it’s successor - Brent.
We all - Councillors and Officers - have a joint duty to look after and protect the bequest from Titus Barham.
I take my duty seriously and have tried to engage both with the Trust Committee and Council Officers to help to highlight the mistakes they made so that correct Accounts are prepared and ongoing losses being sustained by the Charity are stopped.
I requested the right to speak at the meeting on 24 January. The Chair has refused my request to speak.
Prior to that refusal I prepared a written submission to assist the Committee in their deliberations on the 24th and ask some searching questions of the officers.
Mistakes can happen. I will not criticise Councillors or Officers for making mistakes as long as they correct them when they are pointed out to them.
I will not however accept or tolerate mistakes which those in power and authority then try to cover up.
Cllr Lorber sent two documents with his email that are embedded below:
13 comments:
If Cllr Butt and his Labour team of Labour Councillors cannot get the small Barham Charity accounts right how can we trust and expect them to manage Brent Council's finances?
With the massive hole of over £13 million in the Council's Finances announced just 6 months after Labour agreed their current year's budget the answer is simple - We CANNOT!
How many more secrets of incompetence does the Labour Leader hide from us?
FOR INFORMATION:
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.
Thank you for reading this email, and for considering the points I have made. Yours,
Philip Grant.'
FOR INFORMATION 2:
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.
PS I should have mentioned before that I will put these exchanges "in the public domain", in the interests of openness.'
FOR INFORMATION 3:
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.'
FOR INFORMATION 4:
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.'
What is Cllr Butt afraid of? If he has nothing to hide he would welcome the input from a very well respected local councillor no matter what party the represent.
Barham Park Trust should be doing everything to ensure the park is properly managed and the Trust accounts should be clearly and properly presented.
As a previous comment says, how do we know they are handling the main Brent Council accounts properly if they can't get the Barham Park Trust accounts correct and they won't allow anyone to address this meeting?
An interesting exchange! Just to be clear, Wembley Matters is not 'the Green Party blog' but I am a member of the Green Party, as I am of other groups. The blog covers a wide range of issues beyond Green Party policies and guest posts are not by members of the party and events advertised are almost all non-Green Party events. During election periods I might cover some issues from a Green Party perspective and declare as such on the title page.
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.
Nobody but Butt and his cronies consider Wembleymatters to be other than a blog about Brent and areas close to it. Butt continues to ignore the voices of Brent residents by saying the blog is political and against him and his cronies. Yes, I'm insulting Butt and Co because they are deaf to the voices of Brent residents when they disagree with his administration. The Brent and Kilburn Times is also hated by Butt and is accused of representing Tory and Libdem views. Pathetic.
Agree, the editor does very well to shine a light on the darkness of coucil matters and facilitate open discussions here.
Given the responses by Cllr. Butt to my emails (see above) it is probably no surprise to see the following decision, posted on the Council's website, from the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting this morning:
'Decision:
RESOLVED that having considered the reference back of the called-in decision on Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2022 – 23 by the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee the Trust Committee agree to confirm their original decision to approve the Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2022-23, enabling the decision to take immediate effect.'
Did the Trust committee really consider the reference back before deciding to ignore it???
Wembley Matters is a great way for Brent Residents to actually find out what's happening where they live.
The Brent Magazine published by Labour run Brent Council is just a Labour propaganda machine - when did you ever see a Conservative or Liberal Demoncrat councillor featured in the Brent Magazine despite them doing some very good work for the residents they were elected to represent.
Post a Comment