We were engaged in a democratic process - not a conspiracy

Ruth Moher

Jim Moher

GUEST BLOG FROM COUNCILLOR RUTH MOHER AND COUNCILLOR JIM MOHER

Muhammed Butt

The majority Brent Labour Group on Brent Council have recently had  their annual  elections for Leader, Deputy Leader and Executive. As usual,  this involved a range of contests for different positions. This democratic  process resulted in some significant changes at the top, with Cllr Muhammed Butt replacing Cllr Ann John as Leader. 

Suitable tributes were paid to Cllr John for the long and sterling service which she has given to the Labour Party and Council, which we endorsed.


As long-serving activists in the Labour Party and as senior front bench councillors, we favoured the change and indeed Ruth stood for and was elected as Deputy Leader, without challenge. Jim was returned as
Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, again without challenge.

 In the circumstances, we entirely refute the gossip which  you retailed from a BNCTV item which was based on an anonymous and mischievous source. It implied that we may have been involved in a conspiracy to bring about the change of Leader, an innuendo which your headline circulated widely.


The truth is that we took an active and open part in a democratic process, that is all. As elected public representatives we take exception to such 'sour grapes' gossip being given credibility by your blog. This leak is only an attempt to deflect from the fact that a majority of Labour councillors thought it was time for a change.

Brent Council: Who's in charge?

The relationship between the Chief Executive of a council and its Leader varies between councils. That between Brent's Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel and Councillor Ann John. Leader, has come in for comment because it sometimes appears that the usual roles have been reversed: Gareth Daniel is the political leader and Ann John the manager of cuts. It is more likely that the roles have begun to merge.

Back in 1997 the Local and Central Government Relations Research No 55 stated:

Chief executives’ view of the future is coloured by their role in local governance. Interview evidence suggests most of those active in local governance think it can be developed within existing legislation.

A few would like to see the position of the chief executive strengthened at the expense of councillors, who would see their role reduced to broad policy and scrutiny. A strengthened chief executive might resemble an unelected mayor. If elected mayors were introduced some existing chief executives, it was suggested, would stand for election, a comment that reinforces evidence of a local leadership role taken by some chief executives.

Certainly Gareth Daniel had to take such a role in 2005 when he ran the council in the interregnum after the NOC election when the political parties were unable to agree coalition arrangements.

More recently his Newsletters to council staff have revealed further information about the relationship and particularly his stance on the cuts::

All councils have a legal duty to live within their means and to set a balanced budget and the Executive was clear that this is what will happen.  But they were also equally clear that they wanted to think and plan ahead at least to the end of their current four year term and to do their utmost to protect frontline services.  This approach will give us all a degree of confidence about the future and some assurance that our political leaders have both the ability and inclination to take control of events. (November 2011)

This month's Newsletter sees him taking a political stance that criticises those fighting the cuts:

I have been particularly struck recently by the electorate’s response to the financial problems facing the public sector.  It’s not that I am surprised that the British people don’t like paying more taxes, fees and charges – who does?  I am also not that surprised when local people protest against plans to close a much-loved local facility whether it is a library, a school, a clinic or a post office.  People understandably don’t like losing things that they value or which they see as important parts of their local community.  But what I do find surprising is the degree to which the public seems to be in denial about the very existence of a financial crisis at all and their curious belief that councils and other public services should somehow solve their financial problems without making any changes to service provision.

More controversially he then seeks to instruct council employees, already working harder because of staff reductions, experiencing frozen wages, and with further cuts hanging over them, to persuade the electorate to accept the cuts:

It is now the job of every council employee to help explain these facts to the very best of our ability.  It’s probably unrealistic to expect people to praise us for taking tough but necessary decisions – that really would be a surprise!  But the public do have a responsibility to live in the same real world that we ourselves occupy.  No grown up can simply ignore the economic realities and pretend that councils should continue with ‘business as usual’ regardless of the serious financial problems facing the country in general and local government in particular.  While many people are quick to condemn public servants for taking difficult decisions, the public cannot be allowed to think that difficult decisions can themselves be avoided.  That is the economics of cloud cuckoo land.

So I would like to ask all members of staff to see 2012 as the year in which we really try to get the message across to local people about the Council’s approach to budget reductions, service improvement and value-for-money.  Of course some people won’t listen whatever we say but I believe that the majority of people are open to argument most of the time.  That is our opportunity to make our case, to explain the really harsh climate in which councils are now having to operate and to win public understanding (if not actual support) for the approach we are taking.  The only alternative to the One Council programme would be even worse cuts to frontline services and even more unpopular decisions that would upset even more local people.  Brent Council has a good story to tell when it comes to budget savings – let’s all make sure we start to communicate our positive message with pride and conviction.  [Daniels' emphasis] (December 2011)

 Several councils have recently decided to do without Chief Executives. Such a decision would save Brent council Daniels' salary of £194,550 plus 20% on costs.  Unsurprisingly SOLACE , the Chief Executives' professional organisation, makes the case for Chief Executives:

The role of the Chief Executive and Leader are closely linked but are not wholly discrete –they are overlapping and complementary which brings its own set of tensions. One of the key roles of the Leader and Chief Executive should be to construct trust at a point of tension and potential conflict between the different
worlds of political logic and managerial logic. It is important that there is mutual understanding of each others’ roles, and this relies on good communications.

A Leader must be able to impart to their Chief Executive their understanding of the group and of the wider political context and imperatives without such communications being seen as disloyal. The Chief Executive needs in a similar way, without eroding the loyalty owed to colleague officers, to be able to discuss with a Leader their managerial capacity or incapacity to deliver on a particular agenda. This is not just about interpersonal skills but about mutual grasp of each other’s worlds.

A wise Chief Executive commits to their Leader unconditionally, and understands this as including roles of confidant, mentor, partisan, speech writer and PR consultant. When it works, the relationship between Leader and Chief Executive is an exceptional thing (My emphasis)

Brent: Managerialism versus Democratic Accountability

Brent as seen by the Independent, 25th October 1986

A Labour councillor greeted me at the Green Fair on Saturday by asking if I was taking a "break from having a go at the Council", before reminding me that the Green Fair was funded by Ward  Working. I can see how councillors may feel under siege at the moment with their library closures under attack from local people, the national media and the government. This blog is small fry compared with all that but the remark does imply that the Council is not being given credit where it is due.  The reasons behind this negativity deserve some consideration.

Three interconnected factors serve to remove the council from true accountability. Firstly the cabinet system of government leaves the majority of councillors, both from the ruling group and from the opposition, relatively powerless. The Executive makes the real decisions and full council meetings, because of Labour's big majority, merely rubber stamp decisions. Cllr Ann John, Brent's own 'Iron Lady' keeps a firm grip on any dissent within the Labour group.  Overview and Scrutiny Committees are ineffective and used mainly for grandstanding by the opposition rather than meticulous scrutiny and informed debate. The Willesden and Brent Times this weeks highlights poor attendance at council meetings by Councillors Simon Green (Lib Dem), Hayley Matthews (Lib Dem), Chris Leaman (Lib Dem) and Bhiku Patel (Conservative). Matthews is particularly criticised for not attending three children and young people overview and scrutiny committee meetings since last December.  The WBT editorial argued that it has been residents who voted for these councillors who have ended up doing the councillor's work, airing concerns about controversial decisions at council meetings. The real decision making often occurs outside public scrutiny at pre-meetings and Labour group meetings.

Secondly since the mid-80s when a Labour led Brent Council was pilloried by the national media, led by the Daily Mail, Labour has shied away from overtly political leadership. Instead, influenced by New Labour, the approach has been managerial. The council's role is to manage services and resources efficiently. This sounds sensible but leads to the situation where Labour has implemented the government imposed cuts, arguing it is their duty to 'balance the budget' rather than mount a political campaign against the cuts  of the kind advocated by Labour Party member and former councillor, Graham Durham, in a letter to the WBT this week.

This managerialism contributes to the third factor which is the blurring of distinctions between councillors and council officers, particularly at the senior level.After the inconclusive borough elections in 2006 there was a long period when the political parties could not agree a coalition and instead the officers under the leadership of Gareth Daniel ran the council. This inevitably increased the power of the officers and they were further strengthened because subsequently they were dealing with what was at the time a very inexperienced group of Liberal Democrat councillors. At council meetings currently it often feels that councillor's are representing officer reports rather than putting forward a political case for particular policies. Activists in campaigns such as the libraries, often see the officers as targets as much as the councillors, and at area forums officers often have to come to the aid of the councillor chairs.  Recent moves by the council to delegate more decision making to officers on Regeneration and Major Projects, Planning and the Waste Strategy reinforces the trend.

All these factors serve erect a barrier between the council and residents with decision making increasingly opaque. The controversy around consultation is an example where the council sees it as merely explaining their decisions to local people and activists seeing it as a opportunity to change decisions. The managerial approach implies that managers make the decisions and impose them on those below. Unless a manager has a particularly collegiate philosophy they tend to resent opposition from below and see it as illegitimate. That appears to be behind the council's resentment at criticism from within their own ranks, from opposition parties, from local activists, and from the local media.

The ability to make these criticisms is essential to local democracy and we must all continue to hold the council to account.