Labour abstentions on Tory Davani motion

Cllrs Duffy, Long, Crane, Eniola and Dixon abstained tonight on the Brent Conservative Motion (see posting below) on the Davani racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal case.

Moving the motion Cllr Warren said that Cara Davani should have been subject to disciplinary action rather than walk off with £157,610.   Residents would have backed the Council if, after the Employment Tribunal judgment, they had told her to 'go whistle' and taken on any resuting action.

Deputy Council leader Cllr Margaret McLennan, stating that this was part of her Cabinet brief, said that the Council had taken legal advice on the matter.  Legal advice had been that if the Council took discplinary action Davani could have claimed constructive dismissal and was likely to have been successful.  The settlement was in line with other redundancy payments and her contractual entitlement as a salaried employee of the Council.

McLennan went on to claim that  Cllr Pavey had undertaken a thorough review of HR and the result was that the Council had received an award for its Human Resources achievements.

The Council had made numerous press statements stating that the Council would not tolerate such behaviour and its position was clear and well known.

Brent Council tonight debates Oladapo Report, Davani pay-off, Chancellor's local government cuts and (of course) parking

As well as an expected  Mayoral statement on Hate Crime, Brent Council will tonight (7pm Civic Centre) be considering the Independent Investigator's report on the Tayo Oladapo case.

Cllr John Duffy is due to ask a question about removal of tree stumps LINK and there are three group motions down for debate.

What a waste  of money.

This Council regrets  making the exit payment of £157,610 to the former director of human resources,Cara Davani.We agree that this payment is  a reward for failure.

We also agree that Cllr.Butt should apologise to the residents of Brent ,and explain  to them why the Council has spent in excess of £1m. in connection with the entire " Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case."

We further agree that Cllr.Butt should explain to residents how he reconciles the payment of these monies to M/ s Davani with his persistent claim that Brent has no money.

Councillors Warren, Shaw and Davidson

Parking charges

That the Cabinet reconsiders and revokes the change to the parking permit charges agreed in which, in 2018, owners of diesel vehicles will have to pay more for their permits.

Councillors Colwill, Kansagra and Maurice

Government budget

Brent Council welcomes the decision by the Chancellor to abandon his budget surplus target for 2020.

However, Brent Council regrets the suffering that has had to be endured by citizens of this country for six wasted years, including the residents of Brent, in pursuit of this goal by the inappropriate means of squeezing some of the most vulnerable, and passing responsibility for cuts onto local government.

Brent council regrets all those who cannot access affordable accommodation because the government refuses to let councils invest in housing, for the sake of this abandoned goal. Brent Council regrets the extra strain out on the NHS, due to the squeeze on adult social care budgets that was caused for the sake of this abandoned goal. Brent Council regrets the stress pushed onto some of the most vulnerable residents as the social security budget was cut for the sake of this abandoned goal.

Brent Council hopes that the government now realises that you cannot cut your way to growth, and will invest in services, infrastructure and people properly through local councils such as Brent, who understand what the real needs are and how to respond to them.

Councillor Miller

£157k payout leaves Davani laughing all the way to the kennels

The Brent and Kilburn Times LINK today reveals that former Director of Brent Human Resources, Cara Davani, was paid out £157,610 when she left the Council, almost to the day, last year. Davani as well as her job with Brent, also had her own HR Consultancy and a dog breeding business.

At the time Brent Council said:

'Cara Davani, Director of HR and Administration, will leave the Council at the end of June. She intends to take a career break for a while.

The Council is grateful for the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years.’

Part of Davani's 'contribution' was to land the Council with an Employment Tribunal case in whcih she and the Council were found to have victimised and racially discriminated against an employee, Rosemarie Clarke.

Cllr Butt and Cara Davani

Council leader Muhammed Butt went out of his way to protect Davani and refused to allow any disciplinary action against her.  The Pavey review of Brent Human resources was excluded from dealing with the Employment Tribunal case. This was a decision that Pavety recently said he regretted remarking that he should have fought harder for a broader remit LINK.

Philip Grant and I both tried to raise the case at Brent Council meetings but were denied the opportunity.  LINK

I very seldom agree with Tories but Cllr John Warren's comment to the BKT hits the nail on the head:

£157,610 compensation for loss of office is a sick joke. There's no way they should have given her a penny because it's a reward for failure. It would be interesting to see how they justify it as I don't believe they needed to pay her that. Not a bad deal to be rubbish at your job and get a payoff like that.

Is this the beginning of the end of Brent Council's Human Resources scandal?

Brent Council has announced the appointment of a new Director of Human Resources. This is the post currently held on an interim basis by Mildred Phillips, who took over when Cara Davani left the Council. Presumably Phillips will now revert to her previous deputy role.

David Veale is expected to take up the post in July. He is currently the Assistant Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development in Ealing, a post he has held for 4 years.

Mildred Phillips was notable by her absence at the recent Scrutiny Committee where Michael Pavey  protested that the report on progress on his HR Review, that she had written, had not been submitted to him for approval prior to publication.

Pavey remarked at Scrutiny that the report felt like 'a ceremonial closing of the Pavey Review' he went on to say, 'as the actions are ticked off, I have a lingering concern that we will lose the imperative which launched this [review] process in the first place.

It will be David Veale's job to ensure that imperative is not lost and that the battle for racial equality and an end to bullying and harassment becomes a top priority in practical terms for Brent Council.

Veales has had experience of a dysfunctional HR department at Ealing where this was said about the department LINK:

In 2006 an Audit Commission report painted a gloomy picture of the HR function at Ealing Council. The troubled department was failing to provide a good HR service to the organisation and bringing little added value.

The team was feeling demotivated, overworked and unproductive following an intense period of restructuring. With so much on their plates, team members had lost sight of the big picture. A series of rapid changes in leadership, with five HR directors in almost as many years, had also lowered morale. The structure of the senior HR team meant that the five key senior leaders, each responsible for a vital HR function, worked in isolation.

To improve the service, the senior HR team needed to be re-energised and prepared for further change. Recognising this, Hilary Jeanes, the interim HR director at the time, appointed Paul Fairhurst and some of his colleagues from the Institute for Employment Studies to conduct a bespoke strengths-focused coaching scheme for the HR leadership team. The aim was to support the senior leaders through this difficult time, rebuild their confidence and help develop them as managers and inspirational leaders.

A six month coaching programme was instigated with some sessions off-site, away from the frontline:

David Veale working Ealing HR consultancy at the time said in his evaluation of the programme:

The programme gave me a clear understanding of my strengths and the activities I enjoy doing at work, as well as those I find more challenging. It helped me step back from difficult situations and view them more objectively. I feel much more confident, and as a team we are less stressed, less reactive and more focused on outcomes.

 The case study concluded:

Lessons learned:

• Ignoring weaknesses turns them into problems. Focus on your strengths, and make sure you know the strengths of those around you.
• Overworked, exhausted staff need thinking space, but a re-energised team can have the determination to tackle bigger challenges ahead with enthusiasm.
• Change is a constant, but preparing people for it, rather than inflicting it upon them, is well worth the investment. 

It is to be hoped that these lessons and others learned in the interim will contribute to a change of culture at Brent HR.

Meanwhile the 'Guinness' model of Brent Council management (white on top and black below) has been changed to some extent by the appointment of BAME candidates. Althea Loderick succeeds Stephen Hughes as Strategic Director of Resources and Amar Dave takes over from Lorraine Langham as Director for Regeneration and Environment.

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.

Bullying at Brent Council - FoI response

The following response to a Freedom of Information request was released earlier this month. It is of interest in the light of the Cara Davani controversy LINK

FOI Request – 4686497

1)    How many employees of your authority  [Brent Council] have made an official complaint of harassment and bullying at work since the 1st April 2009?

15

2)    How many of these complaints were upheld in favour of the complainant?

2

3)    How many of those which were not upheld in favour of the complainant went on to Appeal?

3

4)    How many of those that went to Appeal were found to favour the complainant?

0

5)    How many complaints went on to an Employment Tribunal?

0

6)    How many of these were found to uphold the complaint?

N/A

7)    Out of how many of those allegations (the number given to question 1) did the complainant of bullying claim that the bullies were telling lies?

0

8)    How many staff does your authority have and what is the current population within your authority's area?

There are 2,109 employees as at 31/12/2015

The population of Brent, taken from the GLA short-term population projections for 2015, is an estimated 325,300.

The Dreams of Mo and the Race for Opportunity Awards

Guest blog by Nan Tewari
 

Brent acceptance speech for race equality award

I'd like to thank Business in the Community for organising the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015.

[I'm absolutely ecstatic at winning this award which will definitely be one in the eye for our detractors most notably Martin Francis and Philip Grant who have nothing better to do than ask questions and expect answers.]

Brent Council has taken action to create a workplace culture which puts race equality at the heart of our activity.........

[Hope you miserable lot at Watford Employment Tribunal are sitting up and taking notice of this vindication.]

…........and has demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring that ethnic minority talent has equal opportunity to progress at every level.

[Ethnic minorities in Brent have an unfortunate habit of getting sacked before they can progress up the ladder and if they manage to survive there are no senior jobs left to progress into anyway – it's nothing personal.]

I couldn't close without paying tribute to the outstanding team at Brent Council that made this award possible – Cara Davani, Christine Gilbert, Andrew Potts.

[Thank heavens The Cronies have gone.  The constant public reminders of race discrimination, victimisation, bullying, Oyster-card misuse, appointing staff without interviews, blah de blah de blah, were doing my head in.]

Expectant hush falls...............

…..........and the winner of the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015 in the Transparency, Monitoring and Action category is.................................

Teach First.

And so it came to pass that on October 6^th the Brent dream of Bringing Home the Race Equality Trophy lay in tatters.

It was Wembley Matters, intrepid organ beloved of people who expect the odd display of integrity and published by that award-winning cultivator of the phaseolus coccineus (runner-bean grower to you and me) Martin Francis, that broke the astonishing news on 1 July.  Brent Council under the guidance of its preceptress Cara Davani, former Director of HR, had nominated itself for an equality award. LINK

You would have thought that in the face of the Watford Employment Tribunal finding against Brent Council and its HR Director Cara Davani, of victimisation, race discrimination and unfair dismissal against a member of staff, the Council might have not have wanted to risk opening itself up to even further public opprobrium and ridicule but you'd have been wrong.

You may have been forgiven for thinking that the Council's best policy might possibly have encompassed maintaining a judicious low profile for a respectful period until the storm had passed but you'd have been under a misapprehension.

In fact, in its desperate thrashing about to rescue itself from the PR disaster-hood that had dogged the Davani dominion over the Council, the strategy of applying for the equality award emerged as a seemingly heaven-sent opportunity to rubbish the aspersions so unjustly cast upon the Council's and Davani's pristine reputations by the Watford ET and the local plebs.

Public outrage was expressed in no uncertain terms at the time the news broke here of the award entry.  There now appears to a most curious reluctance on the part of the Council to take to its intranet once again to announce the result of the awards dinner on October 6th.

And in other news, congratulations to Teach First who I trust will prove a deserving winner of the Race for Opportunity Awards 2015 in the Transparency, Monitoring and Action category.

Brent Council settles Employment Tribunal compensation out of court

Ten minutes before the Employment Tribunal remedy hearing was due to start at Watford Tribunal on Wednesday  Brent Council settled with Rosemarie Clarke's legal team out of court.

Although details are subject to a Confidentiality Agreement an award would normally cover legal costs and loss of earnings.

This marks almost the last chapter in the saga with the main protagonists including Cara Davani, Andy Potts, Fiona Ledden and Christine Gilbert no longer employed by Brent Council.

Muhammed Butt, a stout defender of Cara Davani, remains in post and of course Philip Grant's two questions remain unanswered.

Brent Labour vote against an independent inquiry into Employment Tribunal case

Having previously voted down a suspension of standing orders to hear Philip Grant's deputation on achieiving high standards in council conduct, Brent Labour went on to vote down an independent inquiry into the Cara Davani Employment Tribunal case.

Only Brondesbury Conservatives and Helen Carr, the Liberal Democrat councillor, voted for the motion. Kenton Conservatives abstained.

In the process of supporting the motion 'with regret' Helen Carr launched a snarling personal attack on Philip Grant that went on far too long before the Mayor, Cllr Lesley Jones,  stopped it when new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs grabbed her arm.

Cllr Muhammed Butt was cock-a-hoop and came up  after the meeting to congratulate Cllr Carr on her attack, asking if he could have a copy of what she had read out.

Other Labour councillors approached Philip after the meeting to express sympathy and distance themselves from what Carr had said,

Welcome to Brent Carolyn.

Brent Labour support gag on deputation on need for high standards in carrying out council business

 This is the deputation Philip Grant would have given at tonight's Full Brent Council Meeting if he had he not been forbidden to do so by Fiona Alderman,Brent Chief Legal Officer. Challenged to give her reasons for the ban she repeated the contents of an email she sent to Philip Grant last Wednesday.  He had replied to that response setting out the reasons his deputation should be allowed. He sent her a copy of the deputation so that she could see for herself that it was not a campaign and not a personal attack on individuals. She did not refer to this in her account to Full Council..

When Cllr Warren moved suspension of standing orders to hear Philip Grant's deputation only Brondesburty Park Conservatives voted for it. Most Labour  councillors voted against with Cllr Duffy and Crane and the Kenton Conservatives abstaining.

The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of
Brent Council.

I am here as an individual, but I hope that the many Brent residents and staff who have raised similar concerns will feel that I am speaking for them as well.

I would like to welcome Carolyn Downs to Brent. She has a very important job as Brent’s new Chief Executive, and a key part of that role is in setting an example of the highest standards of conduct to the staff she leads. Those standards are summed-up by the principles of integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

I know that I am not the only Brent resident who feels that these high standards of conduct have been allowed to slip by some senior figures at Brent in recent years. I can illustrate what I mean through a recent example, where proper accountability and openness does not appear to have been shown by Ms Downs’ predecessor.

In June 2015 it was announced that Brent’s Director of HR was leaving the Council, to take a career break. Many were surprised that she had been allowed to stay in post, following findings of fact made against her a year ago by an Employment Tribunal. It found that she had victimised, and facilitated the constructive dismissal of, a fellow officer who had complained of being bullied by her.  

Rumours quickly emerged from the Civic Centre that the departing Director of HR was receiving a “pay off” from Brent. Serious concerns about this were raised, by me and others, from 12 June onwards. The original questions to the interim Chief Executive were dismissed on 8 July with the statement: 

‘I am advised that the Council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.’

On 9 July I asked the interim Chief Executive two simple questions which did not require the disclosure of any details of the arrangements. Those questions are still unanswered, despite reminders from me, and requests from a number of individual Labour councillors, and the leaders of both Conservative groups. 

I would ask the Council and its Officers for the honest answers to them now:

1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council’s employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015?  YES or NO.

2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties?   YES or NO.

It is important that these questions should be answered. If you don’t, people will rightly ask: “what are they hiding, and WHY?” If either or both of the answers is “no”, councillors, staff and residents should be told who made the decisions over the “pay off”, and why it was considered to be justified.

All of you, as Brent’s councillors, have a duty to satisfy yourselves that any such “pay off” is not a mis-use of Council funds. 

·      Ask yourselves, why shouldn’t Brent respect the judgement of an independent Tribunal, if it decides that an award should be made against Ms Davani personally?
·      Why shouldn’t your Scrutiny Committee, meeting this Wednesday, use its power to scrutinise the decisions in this matter?
·      What will you say to your constituents, when you have to make further cuts to their services, and they ask why you turned a blind eye to the “pay off” to Ms Davani?

In a farewell message to the Council’s staff in September 2012, after he had ‘agreed with the political leadership to move on’, Gareth Daniel said:

‘I believe that personal integrity is the foundation for good governance, and without it everything else is lost.’

The ‘few months’ we were promised it would take to recruit a new Chief Executive has turned into three years, and the high standards he set have been allowed to slip. I would urge both councillors and Council Officers to make answering my two questions the first step in putting high standards of conduct at the heart of how our borough is run, under Carolyn Downs’ stewardship.

Thank you.

Philip Grant
7 September 2015

Brent Council should take the opportunity tonight to open a new chapter in transparency and accountability

Regular readers of this blog will know that there have been numerous occasions when attempts to address Brent Council on controversial issues, ranging from the Veolia Public Realm Contract to the Cara Davani case, have been disallowed as well as motions from both Liberal Democrats (pre 2014 local elections) and Conservatives being ruled out of order.

Muhammed Butt's promise on taking over the leadership of the council of a new era of transparency and accountability, a commitment to listen to the views of residents and opening the council up to their scrutiny, has not been fulfilled.

Tonight's Full Council meeting, will be attended by the new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs. The old senior management  regime of Christine Gilbert, Cara Davani, Fiona Ledden and Andy Potts has gone.

A fresh start would be indicated if Philip Grant is allowed to make his presentation on the important of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council without interruption and there is proper debate on the Brent Conservative motion calling for an independent inquiry into the Rosemarie Clarke employment tribunal case.

Over the weekend I wrote the following to my ward councillors:

I am writing to urge you to support Philip Grant's request to make a deputation to Full Council on Monday September 7th.

I know Philip personally and he is a man committed to the highest standards in public life. He does not belong to any political party. His contributions to debate are always measured and well researched. The title of his deputation is one that Brent Council should welcome and support: “The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council”

The reasons given for refusing the Deputation by the Council's Chief Legal Officer are spurious (it is a part of a 'campaign' and is continuation of a 'complaint or grievance') and her decision to treat it as an FoI request high-handed if not a misuse of her powers under the Constitution.

Allowing a dignified deputation by a man of principle who is a respected local resident would provide an opportunity for the Council, after a particularly difficult period, to indicate its commitment to the highest standards of conduct by the Council as it moves forward under a new Chief Executive.

Martin Francis

The public can attend tonight's meeting to support Philip Grant, who has appealed against the refusal of his deputation, and to see if Brent Council can live up to its professed ideals. The meeting is in the Conference Hall at the Civic Centre at 7pm.

It can be watched on the live stream HERE and you can follow and comment via Twitter using #BrentLive

Brent Council to debate call for Independent Inquiry into Rosemarie Clarke case on Monday

The Brent Conservative Group motion on the Rosemarie Clarke case has been redrafted LINK and accepted by Fiona Alderman Brent's Chief Legal officer. It will now be circulated for debate at Monday's Full Council Meeting (7pm Brent Civic Centre).

The motion now reads:

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 the claimant 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 senior management from Brent?

4. What were the financial arrangements behind the second respondent's departure from Brent,including any indemnity given in respect of Tribunal costs awarded specifically against the second respondent?

5. What role did Cllr. Butt play throughout this case?

6. What were the total costs in this case ......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

7. What reputational damage, if any, has this case done to Brent Council?

This Council believes that this is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry.

MORE BRENT COUNCIL SCANDAL! Now they ban opposition motion seeking the truth

On top of the denial of a deputation to Philip Grant (see posting below) Brent Council has now advised that a  motion for Monday's Council Meeting from the Brent Conservative Group should not be moved or accepted as drafted:

This is the message received by Cllr John Warren: 

Dear Councillor Warren

I have reviewed the Motion selected by the Brent Conservative Group.  My advice would be that it is not appropriate for individual, current employees or former employees of the Council to be named in this context in a Council motion and that the Motion should not be moved or accepted as drafted.

Kind regards,  

Fiona Alderman Chief Legal Officer Chief Operating Officer’s Department

Wembley Matters won't be silenced so here is the motion:

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

BRENT SCANDAL: Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Yet another Deputation the Council won’t be allowed to hear! (or, “The Cover-up Continues”)

The cover-up at Brent Council is fast becoming a scandal and surely should at least be taken up by our local and London  press and TV. Here in a Guest Blog  Philip Grant shares the latest twist in the sordid tale:
 

In a guest blog last week LINK  I  let readers know that I had given notice to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer that I wished to present a Deputation to the Full Council meeting on 7 September. One element of that Deputation was to be asking, in open Council, for answers to the “two questions” I had put to Christine Gilbert on 9 July about the possible “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani, its Director of HR until June 2015. 

I was promised a reply to my notice on Tuesday, but it actually came today, at 08:47am. In the interests of transparency, I am setting out the full text of the reply from the Chief Legal Officer, and my response to it:-

Dear Mr Grant

I apologise that I was not able to respond yesterday.

I have carefully considered the constituent parts of your deputation request and I have also considered it as a whole and in the context of your previous correspondence on related matters.

The purpose of the deputation procedure is to allow members of the public to address all Members of the Council in relation to Council services or policies etc. The deputation procedure is not intended to be used as a continuation of an on-going complaint or grievance about decisions made by the Council. Further, any attempt to use the deputation procedure in such a way would not be appropriate.

That being the case, it appears to me that your deputation is, in reality, a complaint about how the Council has handled your request for greater transparency. As you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s response to date, I will formally deal with this via our procedures in relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You will receive a formal response within 20 working days and thereafter you have a route for taking the matter further via the Internal Review process and, ultimately, the Information Commissioner.  This is the appropriate statutory procedure for pursuing your objectives and not the Council’s deputation procedure.

Neither would it be appropriate to use the deputation procedure to complain about the conduct of individual members of staff or other matters relating to their employment, irrespective of their seniority. Consideration of such matters at a Full Council meeting would not achieve your desired objective and would only undermine the obligation of trust and confidence that staff can reasonably expect of the Council as an employer and would be contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998.

Best wishes

Fiona Alderman
Chief Legal Officer, Chief Operating Officer’s Department

I replied to Ms Alderman at 11:03 this morning, as follows:

Dear Ms Alderman,

Thank you for your email this morning. I am disappointed that you have used your discretionary power under Standing Order 39(b) to prevent me from making my Deputation to Full Council on Monday 7 September. I believe you have mis-used that power, in part, at least, because you have allowed previous correspondence on one aspect of my proposed Deputation to cloud your judgement. 
I would ask you to reconsider your decision. Please let me know by close of business tomorrow, Thursday 3 September, whether you will allow my Deputation to go ahead, so that I have ample time to prepare my final text for it.

When the provision for Deputations was introduced into Brent’s Constitution by Full Council, at its meeting on 4 June 2014, the report from your predecessor, Fiona Ledden, said:

‘3.6 (ii) Deputations - It is proposed that Deputations by members of the public be included in the agenda. A maximum period of 15 minutes will be provided in total, with 5 minutes maximum being provided for each speaker. Criteria are established requiring that such deputations relate to a significant matter concerning the borough

 The title of my proposed Deputation is “The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council”, and it can hardly be claimed that this is not ‘a significant matter concerning the borough’. You are wrong to suggest that this is, ‘in reality’, just an attempt to pursue a single ‘complaint’. I first spoke publicly about concerns which I, and other residents, have had about the conduct of Senior Council Officers in a “soapbox slot” at the Kingsbury & Kenton “Brent Connects” forum in February 2014.

 

The timing of my request to make this Deputation now is because of the arrival of a new Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, and the window this opens for improvements to be made. I accept that I am also taking the opportunity to use, as an example of the main point I wish to make, the failure by her predecessor to comply with her duty to show openness and accountability in response to my “two questions”. This gives the Council, and its new Chief Executive, the chance to re-commit to high standards of conduct, by answering those questions and by investigating, if necessary, whether there has been a misuse of Council funds.

You have referred several times to my continuing attempts to get answers over the possible “pay off” to Cara Davani as being a ‘complaint’. If I were making a complaint, I would have said so. Neither you nor Christine Gilbert has previously responded to my correspondence on this matter by saying that it would be treated as a complaint under the Council’s complaints procedures, so there is no reason why you should refer to it in that way now. 

Similarly, I see no reason why you should now treat my request for simple “yes” or “no” answers to two questions, which I first put to Brent’s interim Chief Executive on 9 July 2015, as a Freedom of Information Act request. If it was such a request, I would have said so. If you or Christine Gilbert saw it as such a request, then the 20 working days for a response to it has already passed! 

It is as if you have tried to find excuses not to accept my, perfectly valid, notice to make a Deputation to the Full Council meeting on 7 September, rather than accept, at face value, my request to bring a matter of real and serious concern publicly to the attention of the Council, so that it can be discussed and resolved. This matter has been “swept under the carpet” for too long, and it needs to be aired, so that it can be properly dealt with. Brent Council needs to deal with this stain from the past, so that it can move forward, and the arrival of a new Chief Executive is the ideal time to do that. 

I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

On past experience, it is unlikely that I will be allowed to present my Deputation to the Full Council meeting at 7pm next Monday evening, 7 September. However, if “Wembley Matters” readers still support my efforts to get the “two questions” about a possible “pay off” to Cara Davani, I would ask again, please, that they email their Ward Councillors, as soon as possible, this time with copies to: chief.executive@brent.gov.uk  and fiona.alderman@brent.gov.uk , to say so. Thank you.