Extraordinary Brent Council Meeting on January 23rd to appoint Brent's new Chief Executive

 

The Seniot Staff Appoints Panel, consisting of 4 (three women and one man) members of the Labour Cabinet and Conservative Cllr Suresh Kansagra as well as two officers including the outgoing CEO Carolyn Downs, will be interviewing candidates for the post of Brent Council Chief Executive Officer and Head of Paid Services on Tuesday.

All Brent councillors have been summoned to an Extraordinary  Full Council Meeting the following Monday, January 23rd  at 6pm, to hear the Panel's recommendation and approve the appointment (it is unlikely that they won't but there may be limited dissent).

Carolyn Downs' term finishes in April. Lately, as part of her legacy, she has sough to improve relations between the three parties represented on the council. 

 

Councillor Butt Standards Investigation finding - not guilty, or not proven?

The Brent Standards Committee (Chair Cllr James Allie, Vice Chair Cllr Sandra Kabir) will receive a report at its meeting on Thursday 22nd (6pm Civic Centre) of the independent investigation into Philip Grant's misconduct complaint against Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt.

The 'headline' on the agenda and Fiona Alderman's report is:

Mr Penn’s report concludes that there is no evidence to support the complaint and that Councillor Butt did not breach the Members’ Code of Conduct

Richard Penn was an Independent Investigator and we should respect his overall conclusion, but the headline does not tell the whole story.  The only major difference with  Penn's July report is this paragraph:

4.6 In his written comments on my draft report Philip Grant has set out his reasons why he considers that Councillor Butt has breached the requirements of the Members Code of Conduct in respect of ‘honesty’, ‘’integrity’, ‘openness’ and ‘leadership’. He did not provide any new or additional evidence in support of his compliant but pointed to some of the details of the evidence that I collected through my investigation as supporting his contention that Councillor Butt had breached the Code. I have given his submission careful consideration but have found no reason to vary my finding that there is no evidence to support Philip Grant’s complaint that Councillor Butt has breached the requirements or obligations of the London Borough of Brent’s Members Code of Conduct in respect of ‘honesty’, ‘’integrity’, ‘openness’ and ‘leadership’ .

In introducing his detailed complaint to Mr Penn in a letter on August 25th, Philip Grant had written about the July report:

'Over the next few pages your report sets out seven separate ‘related allegations’, numbered (i) to (vii), and considers the evidence in respect of them, before reaching a conclusion about Cllr. Butt’s actions or conduct on each point. 

I agree that those seven ‘related allegations’ did need to be examined as part of your investigation into ‘whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members' Code of Conduct’, but I believe your report to be flawed because it then moves straight on to your finding at para. 4.6:

‘4.6  My finding is that there is no evidence to support this complaint, and that therefore there was no breach by Councillor Butt of the general conduct principles of honesty, integrity, openness and leadership.’

Although there is a reference to Cllr. Butt’s conduct being ‘entirely appropriate’ in the report’s conclusion on item (vi) of para. 4.5, there is no consideration in the draft report of how, on the evidence available to you, Cllr. Butt’s conduct measured up to the standards required by the general conduct principles. I would therefore comment, and ask you please to consider, that this part of your report should be re-drafted so that it does actually do what the Monitoring Officer’s letter requested, and investigate:

‘whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members' Code of Conduct.’ '

Despite Grant pointing out that Penn's did not look at the evidence he had gathered in terms of the requirements set out in the general conduct principles, Penn does not appear to have taken this on board.  In this respect the report going to Standards Committee is still flawed.

In para. 3.5 (evidence given by Cllr. Butt at interview with Richard Penn) on page 20 of the report it records that Penn asked Butt twice why he had involved XX (the Labour Party worker) in enquiries about Tayo Oladapo (which should have been a key point in considering whether Butt had put himself in a position where his integrity could be questioned), but no real answer was given to this question.

In the Findings section, at around page 42, there is an important passage which shows that it was only because there was no clear evidence that Butt knew that Cllr. Oladapo was dead which gives rise to the finding that 'there is no evidence to support the complaint':

'Councillor Butt said that on 2 March 2016 he had asked XX to go to the hospital to enquire about Councillor Oladapo. He contends that he did not know that Councillor Oladapo had died at the end of January 2016 until Mark Walker told him on 7 March 2016, and that he did not say to XX that he believed that Councillor Oladapo had been dead for a month. 

However, there is evidence from my investigation that Councillor Butt and others had speculated that Councillor Oladapo might be dead or that he might have been taken back to Nigeria by his mother to die. Councilor Butt did tell XX that he believed Councillor Oladapo might be dead but this appears to have been simply expressing an unsubstantiated possibility. This is very different from knowing that someone had died, and it is clear that Councillor Butt was not prepared to acknowledge this as a fact even after XX had spoken to a receptionist at the hospital who had told her that Councillor Oladapo had died.'

The final paragraph of the report gives the result of the Labour Party enquiry into this matter (Richard Penn had agreed with the Labour Party investigator that they would liaise, in order to avoid embarrassing each other with different conclusions!). This is what the Labour Party investigation found (our highlighting):

'On 6 July 2016 John Stolliday, the Head of the Labour Party Constitutional Unit, wrote to Councillor Butt to inform him that the Labour Party’s investigation to determine the facts around the death of Councillor Oladapo and how the Labour Party and Brent Council had been notified his death had concluded. Councillor Butt was informed by Mr Stolliday that the investigation had found no evidence that he had been aware with any certainty on or before March 2 2016 that Councillor Oladapo had died. Mr Stolliday said that the details of the conversation between Councillor Butt and XX are disputed, but no one else was present during their meeting or privy to the content of the conversation. Given this, and given that no other evidence has been presented, it was impossible to prove XX’s allegations were true beyond doubt, although there is no reason to believe that she doubted the truth of her allegations. The Labour Party had therefore decided that no further action would be taken in this matter and that there is no further case to answer.'

Overall, despite what Cllr Butt and Brent Council may claim, perhaps the verdict should be 'not proven' rather than 'not guilty'.

Following receipt of Richard Penn's draft report Philip Grant responded:

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question. (Brent Council General Conduct principle)

1.1 The key issue from my complaint about Cllr. Butt apparently misleading the Council and his fellow councillors about the death of Cllr. Tayo Oladapo is what Cllr. Butt knew, and when he knew it, and whether he was truthful about these matters.
 
1.2 As your report says, at item (i) of para. 4.5:

‘He [Cllr. Butt] contends that he did not know that Councillor Oladapo had died at the end of January 2016 until Mark Walker told him on 7 March 2016, and that he did not say to [XX] that he believed that Councillor Oladapo had been dead for a month.’ 

1.3 Your report goes on to say:

‘However, there is evidence from my investigation that Councillor Butt and others had speculated that Councillor Oladapo might be dead or that he might have been taken back to Nigeria by his mother to die. Councilor Butt did tell [XX] that he believed Councillor Oladapo might be dead but this appears to have been simply expressing an unsubstantiated possibility. This is very different from knowing that someone had died …. My conclusion is that there is no evidence to support the allegation that Councillor Butt knew that Councillor Oladapo had died before he was advised of this by Mark Walker on 7 March 2016 following [XX]’s visit to the hospital on 4 March.’ 

1.4 Cllr. Butt had a duty to be truthful in his Council work, and there is a clear difference between himself and [XX] over the truth of what was said at the meeting between them on 2 March. In the circumstances, I accept that you had little choice but to give Cllr. Butt the benefit of the doubt in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
 
1.5 However, it is also a requirement and obligation of the “Honesty” general conduct principle that councillors must ‘avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.’ Over the next few paragraphs I will provide examples, from the evidence available to you in your draft report (and first report) of what appear to be various versions of “the truth” given by Cllr. Butt in this matter. These show clearly that Cllr. Muhammed Butt was the main source of information about Cllr. Oladapo’s condition for both Brent Council and its Labour Group councillors. I would ask you to consider whether the differing versions of this information created a situation where Cllr. Butt’s honesty might be called into question.

1.6 At para. 2.9 (Interview with Chief Executive) of your first report to the Council of 4 July 2016, the following account of what the Council Leader told the Council is given:

‘The Chief Executive told me that the report to Full Council on 18 January 2016 had requested approval for further absence by Councillor Oladapo as he had been expected to attend that meeting following an organ transplant, but the week before the Council meeting the Council Leader had told her that Councillor Oladapo had been readmitted to hospital. The next Council meeting was on 22 February 2016 and the ‘pre meeting’ with the Mayor, the Leader and Opposition members was on 17 February 2016. At this pre meeting the Leader referred to Councillor Oladapo’s further absence saying that he had not heard from Councillor Oladapo or his family, but that he had become aware that Councillor Oladapo was no longer at the Royal Free Hospital. Councillor Butt said that he understood that Councillor Oladapo’s health had deteriorated and that his mother had taken Councillr Oladapo to Nigeria to die. The Chief Executive advised that she considered that the Council should now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a further report should not be submitted to the Council. However, the others present at the meeting considered that this would appear inappropriately harsh for a dying man ….’ 

1.7 Para. 3.4 of your draft report contains a long written statement from Cllr. Butt, which he provided to you in advance of your interview with him. His statement includes the following passage (on page 15 of the draft report):

‘At the full council meeting in February apologies for absence for Tayo were given and for his absence due to ill health were tabled. This was done in absolute good faith either that he was recovering somewhere here in the UK or that he had flown out with his mother to recover at the family home in Nigeria.’ 

1.8 Para. 3.10 of the draft report records what Cllr. Kabir, the Labour Group Chief Whip, told you at interview, including the following (at page 35):

‘In the early part of this year the Group Executive did not know what was happening in relation to Councillor Oladapo, except that he was in the Royal Free Hospital in Camden and that he was still ill. Councillor Butt had told her that he had been to see Councillor Oladapo and had been shocked at his appearance. A number of people wanted to go to the hospital to see him but were told that he did not want to see anyone. In February this year Councillor Butt was telling anyone who asked that Councillor Oladapo was still in hospital so far as he knew.’ 

1.9 Para. 3.14 of the draft report contains the text of an email sent by Cllr. Janice Long to the Labour Party internal investigation into this matter, which she provided you with a copy of. It includes the following passage at page 37 (presumably referring to an message which Cllr. Butt had sent to Labour councillors about the circumstances surrounding Cllr. Oladapo’s death): 

‘Cllr Muhammad Butt stated 'after December we lost contact with him.’ I could comprehend Tayo dying and our not knowing for a few days as there was not daily contact. But not knowing for 5/6 weeks is unfathomable. And the statement was wrong as we had been told that in January that he was getting better although he had had to be readmitted to hospital. So there was still contact after December.’

1.10 A final point on “honesty” which you may wish to take into account, in weighing up the balance of probabilities in this matter, is a comment made by Cllr. Pavey in his written statement to you at para. 3.7 (on page 33 of the draft report). Although I am not a member or supporter of any political party, and was not involved in any way with the campaign for leadership of the Labour Group between Cllr. Butt and Cllr. Pavey in May 2016, I am aware that such views might be coloured by that rivalry, just as Cllr. Butt’s close supporters also appear to have “rallied round the Leader” and stood up for him in your investigations. Despite this, I still think the following is a fair point:

‘However I also see detailed allegations from a very credible witness – which Cllr Butt has not produced evidence to rebut. I also see a potential motive for Cllr Butt to act in a cynical way – but I can see no reason for [XX] to act cynically. If it is one person’s word against another’s, I only see a motive for one of them to lie.’ 

On the matter of witness credibility, as para. 4.8 of your draft report says, the Labour Party’s own internal investigation into this matter found that: 

‘ … it was impossible to prove [XX]'s allegations were true beyond doubt, although there is no reason to believe that she doubted the truth of her allegations.’ 

This is the written statement Muhamed Butt provided to Richard Penn ahead of his interview:

Proposals that might breathe a little more life into Brent Council meetings

Brent Full Council meetings have become a bit of a joke with a familar structure of leader grandstanding from both sides, ritual party political exchanges in a pale imitation of the House of Commons that get worse nearer election time, brown-nosing questions from Labour backbencher to Cabinet members, and motions that the public are not able to see in advance.  It is a long time since there has been a debate on a petition from the public.

Not to forget of course the regular attempts by John Warren's Conservative Group to wrest the front row seats from Suresh Kansagra's Conservative Group. After their failure they spend the rest of the Full Council meeting gleefully inserting knives between the shoulder blades of  nominal colleagues seated in front of them.

Changes suggested in an officer's report introduce measures that may improve things to some extent. It is noteworthy that a decision on whether to accept a deputation rests with the Chief Executive, advised by the Chief Legal Officer.

 


3.0  Detail

.         


Questions from members of the public 


.        3.1  It is proposed that a new Standing Order will be inserted which allows members of the public to ask questions of Cabinet members. The revised Standing Order which in the Appendix 1 appears as Standing Order 40 would allow for questions to be submitted in writing and circulated with the agenda for full Council. A written answer would be circulated by close of business the day before full Council. One supplementary question could be asked during the full Council meeting. 


External speaker

.        3.3  Provision is included in Standing Orders for an external speaker to be invited to attend full Council and speak for up to 10 minutes on an issue of relevance to Brent and for there to be an ensuing debate for up to 45 minutes. This will not be a standing item on the agenda but will be added to the agenda with the agreement of all Group Leaders. The relevant Lead Member will be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and will submit a motion in accordance with the normal rules on motions. Speeches by other members will not exceed 2 minutes.

  


Non cabinet members’ debate 


.        3.4  It is proposed that, following a recent trial of such a debate, at two Full Council meetings, that there should be a regular debate for a maximum of 21 minutes on a topic selected by backbench members. Up to six members can speak for up to three minutes and the Lead Member will be permitted to speak for up to three minutes and shall provide a written report, for information only, at the next Full Council meeting with what follow up action has been taken. 


Petitions scheme 


.        3.5  It is proposed that the existing petitions scheme is retained but in addition there is provision for ward members, or a chair of a scrutiny committee to make reference to the receipt of a petition to Full Council. In the event that a petition submitted via the Brent petition scheme attracts more than 200 signatures then Standing Orders will allow for a debate at full Council to be requested. 


Motions 


3.6. It is proposed that the timescales for motions will be amended so that motions must be submitted 5 days in advance and that amendments to motions must be submitted close of business the previous working day. This will allow members of the public to have available to them printed copies of the motions and amendments and to follow the debate more easily.

Deputations

.        3.7  It is proposed that the Chief Executive should have a power to determine whether or not a deputation should be accepted, on advice from the Chief Legal Officer. 


Leader’s report 

 

.        3.8  It is proposed that the Leader should have the opportunity to present an Annual report to Full Council. The Leader will be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and there will follow a debate for 20 minutes. Opposition Group 
Leaders will be able to speak for 2 minutes each and all other members will be able to speak for 2 minutes each until the time runs out.

Questions to Cabinet Members

.        3.9  It is proposed that the existing Standing Order is amended so that the original question and answer are provided in written form at the meeting of Full Council and there is provision for a member to ask one oral supplementary question lasting up to 1 minute and for the Cabinet member to reply taking up to 2 minutes. 


Brent revises process for dismissal of Chief Excutive & other senior officers

Cabinet will be asked to adopt new procedures and changes in standing orders at their meeting on June 22nd regarding the dismissal of senior staff, including the Chief Executive.  Other staff to whom it applies are the Chief Finance Officer and the Monitoring Officer.

In 2012 the then Brent Director of Finance, Chris Heaphy, was suspended over gross misconduct allegations( later withdrawn) shortly after Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel was ousted by Muhammed Butt. LINK

The proposal institutes a Dismissal Advisory Committee which includes'independent persons':

The Council will be required to invite independent persons to form part of a panel in the following priority order:

·      an independent person who has been appointed by the Council and who is registered as a local government elector in the borough of Brent;

·      any other independent person who has been appointed by the Council;

and

·      an independent person who has been appointed by another council or

other councils.

The Council has appointed one independent person to deal with Member Code of Conduct complaints but the 2015 Regulations explicitly allow theCouncil to utilise independent persons appointed by other councils.

This is why it is proposed that the Chief Operating Officer be authorised to explore the possibility of sharing independent persons appointed by other councils with a view to establishing a pool of 5 independent persons from which 3 can be selected to form a panel

Such a shared system may be a more cost effective and efficient use of a limited number of independent persons.

The Chief Operating Officer, who wrote the report, is Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets.

Apart from concerns that might arise from the above, there is an Alice in Wonderland feel about the flow chart.

In the top half of the chart you will see that action (or a decision not to act) is in the hands of the General Purposes Committee. The GPC consists of 7 Labour Cabinet Members and one Conservative opposition member.

In the bottom half you can see that the GPC notifies the Cabinet. In effect this is the 7 Cabinet members plus one Tory notifying 8 Cabinet members (Cllr Mashari is added to the 7).

They then have a kind of internal debate with themselves where they might object as Cabinet and reconsider as GPC, before the Dismissal Advisory Panel comes into play...

The Council will be asked to formally approve the appointment of Carolyn Downs as Chief Executive and Head of Paid Services with effect from September 7th 2015 LINK

Brent Council searches for Head Of Equality against background of racial discrimination finding

Kilburn Times September 25th 2014

Brent Council has advertised for a Head of Equality with a closing date of June 15th. and interviews in early July. The new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs' appointment is due to be ratified at the Council meeting on June 26th. The appointment takes place at a time when there has still been no disciplinary or competency procedures over the Employment Tribunal finding that Brent Council and Cara Davani, Head of Brent Human Resources, had racially discriminated against an employee,  victimised her and constructively dismissed her.

The job could be a bit of a hot potato.  It will be interesting to see if there are any applications from ex-Ofsted or Tower Hamlets employees.

Meanwhile perhaps Wembley Matters readers would like to nominate somone for the post.

Head of Equality

Ref 14849

Location Brent

Department Corporate and Business Support

Business unit HR and Administration

Salary range: £48,477 - £51,441 p.a. inc.

Creating Opportunities. Improving Lives.

Brent is a tremendously vibrant London borough where the iconic arch of Wembley Stadium dominates the skyline. Spanning both inner and outer London, it is a borough of huge contrasts in terms of its economic, environmental, ethnic and social make up. Brent’s diversity is evident to all who visit our borough and our long history of ethnic and cultural diversity has created a place that is truly unique and valued by those who live and work here.

The council is pursuing a far-reaching transformation agenda that better meets the needs of our community so it is an exciting time to join us.

The Post

Understanding diversity and tackling inequality has never been more important, as the council has to respond creatively and constructively to address the needs of its residents, meet its statutory responsibilities and continue to demonstrate its community leadership. The Equality Team leads the council's work on equality, diversity, cohesion and human rights. As the Head of the Equality Team, you will drive the integration of effective diversity and equality practice into everything the council does as a locality leader, as a provider and commissioner of services and as an employer.

The Person

You will have extensive knowledge of equality, diversity and inclusion good practice and an understanding of the challenges that local government faces today. You will be able to apply this knowledge at a strategic and operational level in order to improve the lives of local communities and strengthen equality, diversity and inclusion in our workforce.

You will have the ability to build effective relationships at all levels to drive the continuous improvement of equality, diversity and inclusion practices in Brent. You will be expected to provide confident and practical leadership to ensure the council meets its legal, business and reputational responsibilities.

If you share our vision and passion for the vital role of equality, diversity and inclusion in local government, we welcome your application.

Closing Date: 15 June 2015 (23:59)
Assessment Date: w/c 29 June 2015
Interviews: w/c 6 July 2015

Additional Information

Brent Council values the diversity of its community and aims to have a workforce that reflects this and therefore encourage applications from all sections of the community.

Applications are particularly welcome from people with a disability as they are under represented across the council.

All organisations and individuals who work with children and young people, or are involved in providing services for them have a duty to safeguard and promote their welfare.

We are committed to safer recruitment and safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people and expect all staff and volunteers to share this commitment.

Before you join Brent Council, you will need to provide your National Insurance (NI) number and undergo a Home Office Standard I.D. check.

Successful applicants may be required to apply for a DBS Disclosure.

Please note CVs will not be considered as part of your application for this position.

More Info...

14849 Candidate Pack.pdf for a

Disabled Applicants.pdf

• Apply for this job
• Email these job details to a friend
• Back to search results

Where does the power lie in Brent Council?

Muhammed Butt and Cara Davani

The Brent Labour Group will be meeting on Saturday for its Annual General Meeting ahead of the Council AGM LINK on Wednesday 20th May.

The meeting comes at a time when some Labour backbenchers are still angered at the failure to deal effectively with the Employment Tribunal case and the personnel involved, as well as concerns about who will be the next Chief Executive.

There have been mutterings about Brent CMT 's connections with Tower Hamlets and similarities in ethos, in the light of the Lutfur Rahman Inquiry findings.

It is unclear whether the vacant Lead Member for Environment post will be filled at the AGM or incorporated into an existing portfolio, plus reducing the size of the Cabinet.

The Council AGM will again decide which of the rival Conservative groups will be designated the official opposition, unbless the groups come up with their own agreed solution beforehand. The composition of Committees will also be decided at the two AGMs with Scrutiny the most important. The committee has been severely criticised for its failure to scrutinise effectively but 7 out of its 8 members will remain Labour councillors. The General Purposes Committee is effectively the Cabinet plus one opposition member.

If any councilor digs deep enough they may also be concerned about proposals to extend the powers of the Chief Executive in proposed constitional changes. Particularly 2.3.2 below:

“2.3.1 The Chief Executive shall also have the authority to carry out all executive functions in the interim in the event of there being no Leader, or Deputy Leader appointed and insufficient members of the Cabinet appointed to achieve a quorum.

2.3.2    Exceptionally, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Chief Executive shall be authorised to exercise either executive or non-executive functions where the matter is urgent unless this is prohibited by law.

2.3.3    If the Chief Executive acts in the circumstances set out in paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 above, the Chief Executive shall notify, as appropriate, the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council, the Lead Member with portfolio responsibility for the matter to which the decision relates and the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group of any such action.“

Latest on Brent Chief Executive appointment

Following various rumours circulating about the appointment of the new Chief Executive of Brent Council last week I sought clarification from the Brent Council Press Office.  This is their statement:

The (CEO) interview process has not yet taken place therefore no appointment has been made.   The new Chief Executive will be appointed by a panel of elected members later this month and this appointment will be subject to ratification by Full Council on 22 June 2015.  As yet Christine Gilbert has not agreed a leaving date.

I can confirm that Lorraine Langham, Chief Operating Officer, has not applied for the role.

The Council will make a public statement once an appointment has been confirmed.

Finally, Christine Gilbert's top 'interim' job is advertised for permanent appointment

The role of Chief Executive of Brent, currently held in an interim capacity by Christine Gilbert, has at last been advertised nearly a year after Gilber's appointment extension date of 'after'  May 2014, which was proposed in June 2013. LINK

It was argued initially that Gilbert needed to stay to see the Council through a period of transition and to ensure stability, the efficient running of the local elections and the maintenance of the Council's good name and then later that she needed to stay to complete work on the Brent Plan.

In Septembr 2014 I was prevented from asking a question about the delayed appointment. LINK

Looking at the Candidate Information Pack LINK it appears that Council Leader Muhammed Butt believes the appointed candidate will be his personal CEO rather than the borough's.

This is what he says in the pack introduction:

Thank you for your interest in the chief executive role at Brent Council. 

I thought the best way of explaining what we are looking for in our next Chief Executive is by telling you a bit about myself. I am a Brent boy. I was born in Wembley, went to school in the borough and studied at Kilburn Polytechnic. I live with my wife and children in the ward I represent, Tokyngton. My children go to school in the borough. I have owned businesses in the borough, and worked my way up from an engineer to a Project Manager at BT. I care about the residents of Brent because I am one, and I’m proud to live and work here. 

Most people I meet around the borough tell me they enjoy living and working here too. They choose Brent as their home because it is a lively, vibrant place, richly diverse and full of opportunities. That is as true for people whose families have been here for many generations as it is for the residents we welcome from across London, the UK and the world every day. 

The talent and energy of our people, our facilities, our dynamic local enterprise, our connectivity and our location all make Brent a place of enormous potential within the powerhouse city that is London. We need to make the very best use of these assets if we are to fulfil that potential in ways that make sure everyone who lives and work here – including the most vulnerable – can improve the quality of their lives. This is a particular challenge when public services are facing dramatic cuts in funding from central government. 

I work in politics because I want to make Brent a better place and absolutely believe it is possible, even in the face of these financial challenges. I have a passionate desire to see three things for Brent: fairness; wealth and prosperity; and a strong sense of community. The inequality and injustice I see as I travel across our borough makes me angry. I want all residents to have the opportunities and the tools they need to access work that pays a fair wage. I want to attract more jobs to Brent, guarantee our children leave school with the skills they need to access work and ensure people who are unemployed have the support they need to find work again. I believe in a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work – work must pay enough for a sustainable and comfortable life. I believe that the bonds that tie us together as a community are our greatest asset, and I want to nurture and strengthen them and foster citizenship and goodwill. 

I believe we all – the Council, its partner services, residents, businesses and local charities – have a responsibility to make this happen. Working together, we can make Brent an even better place to live and work. 

If you share my passion and commitment to improving the quality of life for all Brent residents, then we want to hear from you. 

Councillor Muhammed Butt Leader of Brent Council

Even more intriguing is Part 4 of the pack:

Part Four – Chemistry and ‘fit’ between the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council

What is the Leader like to work with?

·       Generally pretty relaxed

·       Non-bureaucratic; informal and engaging

·       Prefers informal conversations to emails; likes personal, face to face interaction

·       Likes people who just get on and deliver, and do what they say

·       Has an open-door policy; comfortable relating to staff, partners, business and the community

·       Comfortable with being checked and challenged re what he can do or what is possible

·       Trusts his gut instinct

·       A fulltime Leader of the Council – but not intrusive or interfering

What works less well with the Leader

·       Not being challenged

·       Being told ‘no’ – without a reasonable explanation

·       A Chief Executive that clearly has their own agenda

What style and way of operating will be essential in the new Chief Executive for this relationship to work?

·       Visibly creates a forward momentum for the organisation

·       Energy, enthusiasm and vitality

·       Delivery-focused, for self and for the entire organization

·       Does not need to be chased

·       Not afraid to hold the Leader in ‘check’ – but must have sound reasons for doing so, and, from time to time, be prepared for some constructive challenge back

·       An ego that is sufficiently secure not to have to ‘compete’ with the Leader – rather, sees both of them as working in real partnership for the benefit of Brent

·       ‘Politically (big ‘P’ and small ‘p’) astute and savvy – without being political

·       Lives the ‘open for business’ mantra

·       A natural partnership builder

·       Personally models the desired overall behaviours for the Council of being open, accessible, and transparent

·       Is visible; does not hide in his/her office – but gets out there within the organisation and amongst our communities

·       Easily gains and maintains the respect of members, partners and stakeholders

·       Recognises that being CX of such a large and complex organisation can never be a 9-5 job

·       Ready to ‘let things go’, in the sense that the Council cannot do everything, and many traditional activities may now be better delivered by or through others 

·       Absolutely ‘must’ be sensitive to diversity issues and understand how that impacts (on a day to day basis) on what the Council does, how it is viewed by citizens, and how it operates

So much emphasis on the 'leader' and his qualities suggests an expectation that Muhammed Butt will be around for a while yet...

No information is given on the salary exception to describe it as 'Competitive'   Our old friend Bloomsbury Resourcing are involved as advisors. There is no information on the appointment process itself and how the recruitment panel will be constituted*. Clearly an important consideration for the Labour Group as they approach the AGM in May.

* Since first publication I have heard that Cllr Suresh Kansagra, leader of the 'official' Conservative opposition will be on the appointment panel.

 

Closing date:                                                            10 April

Longlisting:                                                              by 17 April                              

Preliminary interviews + assessments:                 W/C 27 April

Shortlisting:                                                              13 May                        

Final panel:                                                                18/19 May

Confidential Discussion

If you would like to have an informal/confidential discussion about this role, please contact our advisors: Hamish Davidson LINK on: 07932 698807, Shahidul Miah on 07581 230171 or Leon Ward on: 07871 044649, or email them at:

hamish.davidson@davidsonpartners.com

smiah@bloomsburyresourcing.co.uk

leon.ward@davidsonpartners.com

The office landline is: 020 7183 0363