Objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – lawfulness of Cara Davani “pay-off” still to be resolved

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It appears that I was being optimistic when I gave an update on this subject in January LINK  referring to “progress” in dealing with the objections by five local electors to Brent Council’s accounts for 2015/16. I am writing this article to keep interested “Wembley Matters” readers informed about the current situation.

Four months ago, the objectors were waiting to receive some Brent Council documents from the Auditor, so that we could make further comments in support of our objections, and in reply to the Council’s response of 14 December 2016 to our objections. We are still waiting!

Progress on investigating the objections has not been helped by a change in the person at Messrs KPMG who is acting as Auditor. We were informed of the change at the same time this was disclosed in a report by KPMG to Brent’s Audit Committee on 20 March:

‘We would like to inform the Audit Committee that Andrew Sayers, a partner based in our London office, is replacing Philip Johnstone as the engagement lead on the audit. Andrew has already met with Carolyn Downs, Althea Loderick and Conrad Hall to help ensure a smooth handover from Philip. Andrew has a wide experience of audit and is currently the engagement lead at five other London boroughs as well as KPMG’s national Lead Partner for Public Sector audit.’

Mr Sayers did confirm, when first writing to the objectors, that he would share with us all the documents which he considered to be material to his decision on our objections, although he made clear that these might not include those ‘subject to professional legal privilege’. I made the following comments in my reply:

‘That legal advice, the circumstances around and timing of when it was given, and who it was given to, are all key factors in determining whether the payment to Ms Davani was lawful, as the Council claim, or unlawful. Why are Brent's senior officers afraid to allow the objectors to see the evidence of that legal advice, in confidence and purely for the purposes of your investigation, as auditor, into our objections? If they are confident that this "legal advice" document will stand up to scrutiny, they should consent to you sharing it with us; I am copying this email to Carolyn Downs and Conrad Hall, in the hope that they will now give that consent.’

I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive on 23 March, asking if she would, on behalf of Brent Council, ‘now consent to the auditor sharing with myself and the other objectors (subject to safeguards over confidentiality, and solely for use in respect of his investigation into our objections) the legal advice on which the Council's justification for the £157,610 payment we are objecting to is based.’ 

I hoped that the answer would be “yes”, but if it was “no”, I asked for some further information about the meeting at which the “legal advice” had been given, and the notes of that meeting (which appear to be the only documentary record of what that advice was). I hoped that this information would be provided ‘as a matter of course, in assisting with a proper resolution of the auditor's enquiries’, but asked Ms Downs to treat it as an FoI request if that was not the case.

The reply I received (not from Ms Downs, but from a Senior Officer on behalf of the Council) was very abrasive, but did provide the information I had requested. The “legal advice” had been given in May 2015 by Counsel to Christine Gilbert, then interim Chief Executive, who was accompanied by one other Senior Officer (but, surprisingly, not the Chief Legal Officer or any member of her legal team) who prepared the notes. The reply also referred to a decision notice, issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 22 March 2017, using this to justify why the legal advice should not be disclosed to the objectors.

That decision by the ICO was to reject a complaint by Cllr. John Warren against Brent Council’s refusal to disclose the “legal advice” used to justify the payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani, under an FoI request which he made in July 2016. Cllr. Warren had claimed that, although this was covered by “legal privilege”, it should be disclosed ‘in the public interest’. However, the ICO did refer to the Auditor’s investigation into the objections against the £157k payment, and made clear that this was a separate statutory process, so that Brent is wrong to claim that the FoI decision also precludes disclosure (in confidence) by Mr Sayers to the objectors.

The ICO report included a summary of the types of information which Brent has, and which would have been disclosed if Cllr. Warren’s FoI request or complaint had been upheld, saying:

‘The council stated that the withheld information comprises of email correspondence between council officers and the council's barrister relating to the termination of a, now, former employee's contract of employment and associated file notes.’

I have pointed out to the Council, and the Auditor, that this includes more documents than the objectors were led to believe (in November and December 2016) existed, and that all of these documents should be made available to the Auditor, if they had not already been provided to him. (Hopefully, they may still be shared with the objectors!).

I understand that the Auditor also asked Brent, in mid-March, to provide some further information and documentation (even though KPMG had asked them last November to provide all of the documents relevant to our objections). I do not know whether that is part of the reason for the continuing delay. 

When nothing further had been heard from the Auditor by early May, I wrote to ask when the objectors could expect to have the documents shared with us. Mr Sayers has replied that he anticipates sharing the documents material to his decision with us by the end of June, but has not indicated why it should take so long. 

The end of June 2017 will mark two years since Brent’s disgraced Director of HR walked away with £157,610 of Council Tax-payers’ money (as well as having her share of the Employment Tribunal settlement and legal costs in the Rosemarie Clarke case paid by Brent on her behalf). The objectors are having to be patient, but we will see this through. The sad thing is that key figures at Brent Council still seem determined to cover-up the details of what went wrong (and who was responsible for it), even though they finally admitted last year that ‘this had been a very unhappy episode’.

Philip Grant

 

Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – progress on objections to the Cara Davani “pay-off

Guest blog by Philip Grant

As it is a couple of months since I wrote about the latest developments in “the Cara Davani Saga” LINK , I thought that the many “Wembley Matters” readers who are interested in this case might like an update on what has been happening.

The Auditor at Messrs KPMG dealing with the Council’s accounts to 31 March 2016 is still considering the objections from five local electors against Brent’s payment of £157,610 to its former Director of HR, so I cannot pass on any details which are still confidential at this stage. However, I hope that they will eventually come into the public domain when the Auditor has completed his enquiries.

In my guest blog of 19 November I said that I was willing to discuss the issues raised with Brent Council, along with the other objectors, as encouraged to do by the Auditor. I did ask to see a number of documents relevant to the payments I had objected to, although my request was rejected, in respect of most of them, by Brent’s Chief Finance Officer. Despite this, along with three other objectors, I met with him and the Council’s Chief Executive on the evening of 6 December 2016. The fifth objector, Cllr. John Warren, could not make that meeting, but had met with them separately earlier that day.

Although no agreement was reached, the discussions took place in a constructive atmosphere, and helped both sides to understand the other’s position. The objectors explained to Ms Downs and Mr Hall why they felt that the £157k paid to Ms Davani was wholly inappropriate expenditure for the Council to incur, and that this was money which should instead have been used to provide services for people in Brent.

The Chief Executive agreed that the whole episode did not reflect positively on the Council, and she did not dispute that elements had been poorly managed, but said that steps have since been taken to ensure that the organisation no longer operates in this way.

Much of the meeting was spent going through the list of documents I had requested to see, and discussing points arising from these. Mr Hall explained that the Council felt it could not allow the objectors to see any legally privileged advice or confidential documents (which was most of them!). However, the auditor would be provided with all of the information that is available, so that he can reach a decision based on that evidence.

Although we could not see the documents, the discussions did provide some interesting information.

We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!

One surprising fact was that for many items I had asked to see, no documented evidence had yet been found, even though it should have existed. Ms Downs agreed it was unthinkable that key decisions, such as whether to take disciplinary action against Cara Davani in 2014 or whether to make a settlement agreement with her in 2015, had not been discussed with the Council Leader by the then interim Chief Executive, even though the final decision would be for Christine Gilbert to make.

The absence of any evidence of those discussions suggests that either they were entirely verbal (with no written note made of them), or that they had “off the record” written communications, or even that evidence was deleted or shredded before Ms Gilbert left Brent Council. [Dear Reader: If you can provide any definite information (not just speculation) on this matter, and are willing to share it not only with me, but also with Carolyn Downs and the Auditor, it would be helpful if you could do so, please.]

Following the meeting, Brent Council sent the Auditor its formal response to our objections on 14 December. The Council maintains its view: ‘… that the settlement payment to the former HR Director was made lawfully and that, under the circumstances that existed at the time it was agreed, it was the most appropriate way forward in order to protect the Council’s financial position.’ It recommends to the Auditor ‘… that you should either dismiss the Objections, or at any rate conclude that you should take no action in respect of them.’

Brent’s response concludes by referring to a separate letter sent to the Auditor, attaching the confidential and legally privileged documents, and makes clear that the Council does not consent to these being disclosed to anyone else (i.e. the objectors!).

I wrote to the Auditor about these documents, pointing out that he had invited the objectors to make further comments, and that it was unfair to expect us to do so without being able to see the evidence on which those comments needed to be based. Just before Christmas he did reply to say that he would share with us all of the documents which he considered material to his decision. We have not seen any of these documents yet.

The sticking point is over whether the objectors should be allowed to see the legal advice, which appears to provide the sole justification for the Council making the £157k payment to Cara Davani. The Auditor could not force Brent to disclose that advice to him, but the Council did so voluntarily, and there is a provision which allows the Auditor to disclose information: ‘…except where the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of …’ his functions as Auditor.

As well as giving an assurance that I would keep the information confidential, I have pointed out that disclosing the legal advice would actually assist the effective performance of his function as Auditor, by giving me the opportunity to either satisfy myself that the legal advice, and actions taken by the Council as a result of it, were lawful, or to explain to him why the evidence supported my objection that the payment involved was unlawful.

What I can tell you about the legal advice is that, although it is said to have been given by an employment law QC, it was not a written legal opinion from him, but a note made by a Brent Council officer of what the QC is claimed to have said. That advice was summarised by the Chief Finance Officer to Brent’s Audit Committee on 30 June 2016, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting:

‘Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.’ 

Once we have been given the opportunity to see all the documents which the Auditor does disclose to us, all five objectors can submit their further comments. One of the points that I am likely to make is that there appears to be no evidence that Brent dismissed, or even attempted to dismiss, Cara Davani, so how could the Council be ‘… found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal’ for something that it didn’t do?

I’m afraid that readers will have to wait for the Auditor to complete his enquiries before we discover the outcome of this final attempt to get something done about what many of us feel was an injustice. I hope that the result will be worth waiting for.

Philip Grant.

Public excluded from yet another key Brent Council discussion

The KPMG auditor is still investigating  objections to Brent Council's 2015-16 accounts by six local residents over the payment to former Director of HR Cara Davani LINK  and PcW has issued a 'limited assurance' verdict on Brent's Planning procedures LINK and drawn attention to potential for fraud.

Given that context there is  surely public interest in Brent's interal audit and investigation arrangements but the public have been  excluded from hearing consideration of these matters at the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee on January 30th.

The General Purposes Committee has hithertoo been made up of members of the Brent Cabinet, plus one opposition member, an arrangement that has itself drawn criticism.  The agenda item on the Council's website today still includes Cllr Mashari rather than her successor Cllr Tom Miller. Cllr Reg Colwill is the opposition member. Any change of membership will  have to be approved by Full Council at the January 23rd Meeting.

The Cara Davani Saga - objections to Brent’s 2015/16 Accounts to be investigated

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 

In August 2016, Wembley Matters reported that Cllr. John Warren (as a local elector, not as a councillor) had asked Brent’s Auditor to make a Public Interest report about items of expenditure in the Council’s 2015/16 accounts relating to Cara Davani and the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. LINK  I added a comment to that blog, saying that I had also exercised my right to object to those accounts, and I understand that there were four other Brent electors who objected, with five of the six objections relating to Brent’s £157,610 pay-off in June 2015 to its former HR Director, Cara Davani, and related matters.

I know that a number of interested readers may be wondering “what has happened about this?” Until a few days ago, the answer appeared to be “not very much”, but in the past few days I have received a letter from the Auditor at Messrs KPMG, so can now give you an update. The letter was marked “Private and Confidential”, so I will not attach a copy, but as some of the points are already in the public domain, and others are just an outline of procedure, I am happy that I can share the following information with you.

The Auditor wrote on 14 November to formally accept that my objection of 10 August was validly made under section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. The letter confirmed that I had set out a case which could give grounds for the Auditor to apply to the Court for a declaration that Brent Council made unlawful payments during 2015/16 in respect of: 

a) A proportion of the total amount paid by the Council in the out-of-court settlement of the Rosemarie Clarke case, which should have been the personal liability of the second respondent in that case, Cara Davani (the Council’s former HR Director). 

b) A proportion of the Council’s legal costs (both external and internal) in the Rosemarie Clarke case which should have been recharged to, and paid by, Cara Davani personally, as a separate respondent in that case. 

c) The whole of the £157,610 “compensation for loss of office” paid to Cara Davani, and shown as part of the Senior Employees’ Remuneration to ‘Human Resources Director (to June 2015)’ at Note 30 to the Council’s draft accounts. 

d) The whole of any amount paid around June 2015 as an “Exit Package” to Andrew Potts, the Council’s former Principal Lawyer (Employment and Education) or similar title, which is included in the amounts for either ‘compulsory redundancies’ or ‘other departures agreed’ at Note 32 to the Council’s draft accounts.

The Auditor also accepted that, if his enquiries led him to the view that these payments were not unlawful, I had validly requested that he should issue a public interest report in relation to matters a) and c) above.

The Auditor’s letter also set out how his firm’s enquiries would proceed, in respect of my objection (and other valid objections) to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts, saying they would now:

■ ask the Council for their response to the objection;

■ ask the Council for documents relevant to the objection;

■ collect the documents that we think will help me make a decision about the objection; 

■ give you and the Council the opportunity to make further comments on the objection;

■ make any further enquiries we consider to be appropriate;

■ if appropriate, tell you and the Council our provisional findings and views; and

■ decide the objection.

The letter concludes by saying:

‘While this marks the start of the formal objection process, we encourage you and the Council to discuss the issues raised to see whether you can come to an agreement. Please also note that you are free to withdraw your objection at any time.’

Readers who have followed this saga will realise that I am unlikely to withdraw my objection without seeing convincing evidence that the payments involved were properly made. I would, however, be willing to discuss these issues with the Chief Executive / Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council, if they are willing to make available (“in confidence”, if necessary) the information and documents needed to ensure that any such discussion could be meaningful.

I am aware that Cllr. Warren has received a similar letter from the Auditor in respect of his objection, but I do not know whether any of the other three local electors who also sent objections to payments made by Brent to, or on behalf of, Cara Davani have also heard from Messrs KPMG. It would make sense if the local residents involved could co-ordinate their dealings with Brent Council (if there are to be discussions). If you are one of those objectors, please contact me (via Martin, if necessary, see email address under “Guest Blogs” in right-hand column), or at least put a comment with your views below. Thank you.

Philip Grant

Brent Council External Audit certificate delayed while objections to accounts are investigated

The report of the external auditors, KPMG, is tabled for the Brent Council Audit Commitee on Thursday September 22nd, 7pm, Brent Civic Centre.

KPMG note on page 9 LINK:

In order for us to issue an audit certificate, we are required to have completed all our responsibilities relating to the financial year. We are not in a position to issue our audit certificate with the audit opinion as we have received six objections to the accounts from local electors.

We are currently in the process of considering these objections and assess the work we need to fulfil our statutory duties.

It is likely that some of these objection relate to the Council's £157,610 pay-off to ex-head of Brent Human Resources, Cara Davani. The auditor was asked to make a public interest report under Section 24 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act on the payment LINK:

This is the submission by Cllr John Warren:

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

Public's interest led to details of Davani 'exit payment' being revealed

My attention has been drawn to Minutes of Brent's Audit Committee which give further infromation on Cara Davani's 'pay-off' from the Council. The Minutes do not explain why no disciplinary action was taken against her in 2014 after the Employment Tribunal and why (and by whom) a decision was made in May 2015 to seek legal advice on ending her employment with Brent Council.

Extract from minutes of Brent Council’s Audit Committee meeting held on 30 June 2016 (item 7 – Draft Statement of Accounts, 2015/16)

‘The Chair drew attention to note 30 of the draft accounts, which appeared on page 56 of the printed agenda, and asked officers to clarify the process by which the exit payment to the former HR Director had been agreed, as this was known to be a matter of interest to some members of the public.

Conrad Hall explained firstly that the Council acknowledged that the entire sequence of events reflected poorly on the Council.  He added that the Council was not required to publish the figure, but had chosen to do so. Technically under regulations the note was only required to disclose the remuneration of the Chief Executive, officers reporting directly to the Chief Executive and statutory officers.  The Council’s former HR Director met none of these criteria in 2015/16, the year of account. Nonetheless, officers had decided to publish the figure because of the known interest in it, which was felt outweighed the statutory obligations.

In terms of process, Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.  Conrad Hall added that the terms of the final settlement, essentially one year’s salary plus notice, (which were broadly similar to payments to some other senior managers) had been notified to the external auditor.   Whilst the auditor was not required legally to ‘sign-off’ such payments, he nonetheless had the power to intervene in cases where he felt the Council was acting inappropriately, for example if he considered the payment excessive.  Phil Johnson confirmed this and that he had chosen not to exercise his powers to intervene.  Conrad Hall concluded that the terms of the settlement had therefore been negotiated bearing the commercial considerations in mind.  In response to a question from a member of the committee, Conrad Hall confirmed that the Council’s former HR Director had not been subject to disciplinary or capability proceedings, which would have been a decision of her then line manager.

Members asked why the situation had reached the point it had and further enquired of the process followed.  The Chief Executive explained the circumstances at the time and pointed out the improvements that had since been made to the HR procedures concerned, as referenced in the Annual Governance Statement reported under item 9 on the agenda.  The Chair suggested that consideration be given to what information could be made available on this matter that would provide a time line and demonstrate to members how lessons learnt had led to new improved procedures being introduced.’

Auditor asked to make a Public Interest Report on Davani pay-off

The Cara Davani issue just won't go and the news that she now runs a 'boutique hotel' in Suffolk LINK isn't going to exactly endear her to those who have been seeking out the truth about her £157k pay-off.

Now Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group, has asked Brent Council's Auditor, KPMG, to make a Public Interest Report under Section 24  of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Dear Mr. Johnstone, 

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

As is required by law the request has also been submitted to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer, Conrad Hall.

If anyone else wishes to make a request it must be written in a proper form to the Auditor by August 11th. Here is some guidance from  Philip Grant submitted earlier today as a blog comment:

if you are on the voters list for Brent, you have a right, if you wish, to object to the expenditure of £157,610 by Brent Council, BUT ONLY if you submit your objection in a proper form by Thursday 11 August.

If you do want to do this, it can be done by email to the auditor at KPMG: philip.johnstone@kpmg.co.uk , and a copy must also be sent to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer: conrad.hall@brent.gov.uk .

Your email would need to say that it is about the accounts of the London Borough of Brent for 2015/16, and that you are objecting under Section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

You need to say that you are an elector in Brent, give your full postal address, and (if you know them) the name of the Ward in the borough and the constituency (e.g. Brent North, Brent Central or Hampstead & Kilburn) in which you are registered to vote.

You must say what you believe is wrong about the accounts and why you believe they are wrong. If it is the £157k payment, you should say that you are objecting to the compensation for loss of office payment of £157,610 to Brent's former Human Resources Director, shown at Note 30 (Senior Employees' Remuneration) in the accounts, and that you think it is wrong to include this amount in the accounts because it was not a proper payment for the Council to make.

In support of your objection, you need to explain why you think the £157k should not have been paid, and provide what evidence you can. Based on your comment, you could say that Cara Davani should already have been sacked for gross misconduct after the Tribunal findings against her (Note: these were NOT for racial discrimination, but for victimising Rosemarie Clarke and for wrongly having her suspended for misconduct just because Rosemarie had complained about being bullied and harassed by her); that she should not have been given a compensation payment for leaving (or at most only a small one, quoting the normal redundancy rates from your comment); and that the £157k payment shows she was being treated more favourably than she should have been because she was a crony of Christine Gilbert.

You don't need to provide much evidence, as you can also say that you are aware that there has been another objection about the leaving payment to Cara Davani, and that you would like any evidence provided in any other objections to be used in support of your objection as well.

At the end of your objection email, you would need to ask the auditor to investigate the payment you have objected to, and either:

1) ask the Court to declare the payment unlawful, under Section 28, if he thinks there is a strong enough case for this; or,

2) make a public interest report, under Section 24, giving his views on the payment and asking Brent Council to take action to remedy it.

Brent Council and Cara Davani - at last some answers, but ...

On 21 July we published a guest blog from Philip Grant LINK , which asked some questions of Brent Council and its Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, about the pay-off last year to its former Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani.

I am pleased to say that, unlike her predecessor Christine Gilbert last year, Brent Council's Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs has written to provide brief answers to the four points which Philip raised. A copy of her letter is shown below, and readers are invited to consider the information given, and to add any comments they wish to arising from what we now know about the pay-off arrangements.

Further questions regarding Brent Council and the Cara Davani case

Cllr John Warren, leader of Brent Conservatives has responded to  Philip Grant's recent guest post on the Cara Davani case, which Philip sent to the leaders on Brent Council,  LINK with the following additional questions, copied to all Brent councillors:

1. Why did Christine Gilbert,as line manager, not take disciplinary action against Ms Davani following the conclusion of the Watford Employment Tribunal case? The judgment LINK handed down was " brutal " against Ms Davani......members should have a read.

2.Did the Gilbert/ Davani / Butt relationships have any impact on this saga?

3.How will future Brent disciplinary cases be affected by the way Ms Davani was not disciplined? Will not Brent staff be able to use this example...and ask how action can be reasonably taken against them in the light of the decision on Ms Davani. Surely this raises the bar very high as to when the Council can take disciplinary action against any member of staff?

4.Did the Council consider,or not ,whether Ms Gilbert had acted reasonably in her decision not to initiate disciplinary action against Ms Davani?

5. Should Brent 's auditors include this Rosemarie Clarke/ Cara Davani case as a " public interest " report in the final accounts for 2015/2016?

   I have written this week to our auditors making a detailed argument that this should be included .I urge anybody else who agrees with me to write to.....

  Philip.Johnstone@ kpmg.co.uk

6. Why did the " Pavey HR review , " which was supposed to learn lessons from the Rosemarie Clarke case, not even look at the case. How are you supposed to learn lessons .... if you ignore the case that was responsible for the review in the first place!

Brent Council and the Cara Davani “pay-off” – questions that still need to be answered

I commented on Martin’s 11 July blog about “Labour abstentions on Tory Davani motion”  LINK , that I might need to write a guest blog for what I would like to say, as a “comment” did not allow enough space. This is that guest blog:-

I was not at the Council meeting on 11 July, but I have watched the debate on the “Webcast” page of the Council’s website. The first thing it clarifies is that Brent Council was misleading us when it stated in June 2015 that Cara Davani was leaving ‘to take a career break.’ From the statements made in the debate by Cllr. McLennan, and particularly by Cllr. Colwill, it now appears that Ms Davani was made redundant, and that, it is claimed, the £157k she received was Brent’s “normal” redundancy pay-off of one year’s salary plus a further three months in lieu of notice.

However, if this was a redundancy, it was not a “normal” one. It was not the result of a staff restructuring, where her post had been done away with, like the two senior management reorganisations she brought in during her time in charge of Brent’s HR (with large redundancy pay-offs to the Assistant Chief Executive and Legal Director, among others, at the end of 2014, and to a whole raft of senior officers in March 2013). So (1) what was the reason for Cara Davani being made redundant, who decided that she should be made redundant, and why then, in June 2015?
  
 Had she become too much of an embarrassment to Brent Council, or was it part of an “exit strategy” she had worked out herself with her close associate and then interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, before the newly appointed Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, took over?

Cllr. McLennan, in response to Cllr. Warren’s motion, argued that Brent had to make this pay-off on the basis of external legal advice, and that if it had not done so, Cara Davani could have claimed against the Council for constructive dismissal. I welcome the news that Cllr. Warren has apparently made an FoI request for this legal advice to be made public LINK . If that legal advice was only sought around June 2015, it might have been correct, but only because Brent had failed to take timely disciplinary action against Ms Davani, in September 2014, for her misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case.

I have written a great deal about that case, and this article would be far too long if I went into the details again now, but I will refer to some earlier blogs, and provide links to them for anyone who wishes to follow up the points I will make. On 21 September 2014 I wrote jointly to Christine Gilbert and Fiona Ledden (then Brent’s Legal Director), referring to the Tribunal’s judgement, and to comments made by “Wembley Matters” readers on blogs about it LINK, before saying:

‘… I believe that the most important matter, before you consider your own futures, is that you must insist on the immediate resignation of Cara Davani (if she has not already left Brent's employment permanently). Any thoughts of wasting further money (including my own Council Tax payments) on an appeal in this matter should be dropped, as the Tribunal has made the findings of fact which make this such a damning judgement of Brent's actions against this employee, and no legal arguments can undo those findings.’

On the same day I wrote a similar email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, with copy to my Fryent Ward councillors, saying: 

‘What should you do, on Monday morning if it has not already been done before? If Ms Davani has not already resigned or been suspended, you should ensure that the Chief Executive, or the person deputising for her if she is not available, speaks to Ms Davani and insists on her immediate resignation, in the light of the findings of the Tribunal about her actions. While this would treat her misconduct more leniently than she has treated that alleged of others, it would allow her to go immediately, but with payment from Brent for her period of notice, and at least show that the Council is taking the judgement seriously. If Ms Davani refuses to resign, formal misconduct proceedings (including her suspension) would be required, with care being taken that the correct procedures are properly carried out (unlike in Ms Clarke's case).’

As we now know, no disciplinary action was taken then, and I believe there would have been no grounds on which Ms Davani could have claimed “constructive dismissal” if it had been. So (2) why was no disciplinary action taken against Cara Davani in September 2014, when there was clear evidence and findings of fact in the Employment Tribunal judgement to show gross misconduct by her, and who decided that no such action should be taken?

In opposing the motion at Full Council, Cllr. McLennan used Cllr. Pavey’s HR Review and press statements made by the Council that it would not tolerate the sort of behaviour shown by the Rosemarie Clarke case to support her views. Between November 2014 and September 2015 I made a number of attempts to get issues arising from this Employment Tribunal case “on the agenda” at meetings of Scrutiny Committee and Full Council, so that councillors could discuss them openly.

One example was a deputation that I had asked to present to Scrutiny Committee in April 2015, when it was considering the report on Cllr Pavey’s Review, and the draft action plan arising from it. What I hoped to say, so that committee members could question the interim Chief Executive and HR Director (who were present to speak on the report) about it if they wished to, included the following:

·      that the Review was set up to ensure that lessons were learned from the Rosemarie Clarke case;

·      that Cllr. Pavey could not consider that case, as his terms of reference would not allow him to; and,

·      as a result, the Review ignored an important lesson which should have been learned:

‘that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.’ 

After referring to guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director, that ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’, and evidence from the Tribunal’s judgement of misconduct by Ms Davani and a total failure by Christine Gilbert to follow Brent’s HR procedures when dismissing a grievance raised by Ms Clarke, my deputation asked:

‘If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.’

Scrutiny Committee would not allow me to present that deputation LINK . I think the presence of Cllr. Butt, sitting beside Cara Davani opposite the committee members, may have intimidated them into reaching that decision, but the official reason was advice from the Chief Legal Officer that I should not be allowed to refer to the Rosemarie Clarke case in speaking to the committee, as it ‘had not been fully concluded’.

Although that case was still not fully concluded, Cllr. Muhammed Butt was allowed to issue a statement about it at the end of July 2015. It claimed that he was giving the facts of the Rosemarie Clarke judgement, because of ‘untruths’ that had been written about it, but I responded to him LINK  pointing out that HE was the person trying to misrepresent the Tribunal’s findings. This was another example of him seeking to “protect” Cara Davani, and I invited him to respond to these charges, which he has always tried to ignore LINK . So I ask the Council Leader again (3) why was Cllr. Butt “protecting” Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

Although we now know, a year later, that Brent paid Cara Davani £157,610, we still do not know the answer to a second point which I tried to raise when rumours of a pay-off emerged in June 2015 LINK . Cara Davani was a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal case, and would have been personally liable to pay some of the compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal was due to award to Rosemarie Clarke. So my final question, to Brent Council, is (4) whether the out-of-court settlement made to settle Rosemarie Clarke's Employment Tribunal claim in September 2015 included any contribution from Ms Davani, or whether Brent Council paid the full amount including any compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal could have awarded against Ms Davani personally?

I will send a copy of this guest blog to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will also copy it to the three councillors who spoke in the debate on the motion at Full Council, the Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan, and the Leaders of the two Conservative groups, John Warren and Reg Colwill. I hope that they will, together, realise that the questions I have highlighted above do still need to be answered, openly and honestly, so that Brent can finally put the Rosemarie Clarke case behind it, and that they, or one of Cllr. Butt or Ms Downs on the Council’s behalf, will issue a public statement answering those questions.

Philip Grant.