Brent's Corporate Management Team - looking after each other

Brent Green Party and Brent Trades Union Council in their calls for an independent investigation into Brent Council have included an investigation into previous business and employment relationships of senior officers.

Christine Gilbert is an ex-Chief Executive of Tower Hamlets Counci and ex-chief of Ofsted. She became Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council following the row between Muhammed Butt (who had ousted former leader Ann John) and the then Chief Executive Gareth Daniel.

Daniel evetually left with a payment of £200,702.

In the course of the row three members of Brent's Corporate Management Team had written in Daniel's defence.

Clive Heaphy,  Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council, formerly Interim Director of Finance at Ofsted  employed Cara Davani on a £700 a day contract as Interim Head of HR. She was previously Director of Human Resources at Tower Hamlets Council and had worked as a consultant for Ofsted

Cara Davani was originally contracted with Brent Council by Heaphy, and her fees paid through Cara Davani Ltd., although the Brent Audit investigation found no written contract existed. Davani's initial engagement was from March 2012 to 31st October 2012.

Cara Davani drew up Christine Gilbert's contract which included payment into her private companty Christine Gilbert Associates in September 2012. She earned £100,000 in six months and later took up an additional job in Haringey. LINK

Clive Heaphy who had been suspended in August 2012 as Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council on grounds, later withdrawn, of gross misconduct, left the Council shortly after Daniel's departure and the day before Christine Gilbert's appointment as Acting Chief Executive. She took up the post officially on November 5th 2012.

Heaphy left with a payment of £140,508.

Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement, wrote the report that recommended to the Council that Christine Gilbert continue as Interim Chief Executive until after the 2014 local elections.

Fiona Ledden prevented me from speaking to Brent Council on the issue of the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. Correspondence about whether she was correct in that decision continues.

Christine Gilbert will continue as Interim Chief Executive during the Autum and Spring according to Muhammed Butt so that she can work on the new Borough Plan.

A  recruitment process for a permananent Chief Executive will begin in 2015.

Ledden claims Brent Council tweeted in 'error' to 8,000 followers inviting them to speak at Monday's Full Council meeting - then bars Martin Francis from speaking

Regular reader will know about the issues around democracy and Brent Council (refresher course: LINK ) and these came to a ahead wsith the Labour landslide  with proposals to limit questions to the Cabinet and have just one 'super' Scrutiny Committee. At the same time Muhammed Butt tried to get a change in rules which would have meant the Labour leadership only being contested every four years.

A concession made to the public was that they would be allowed to address full Council.

On Friday August 29th Brent Council sent out this tweet: (Screen grab)

Clear enough you might think and having posted about the opportunity on this blog and on Facebook I sent in a request on Monday morning to have a deputation on the issue of the appointment of a Permanent Chief Executive.

The previous adminstration had accepted a report from Fional Ledden (Chief Legal Officer) to continue with Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert's acting appointment until after the May 2014 local elections. According to Ledden this was in order to ensure a smooth transfer to the Civic Centre, continuity during the election and because market conditions were not right for recruitment.

The then Liberal Democrat opposition had opposed this and called for an open and transparent recruitment process. LINK

I was surprised to receive a belated response from Fiona Ledden refusing my request as it had not been received by the  'deadline of August 29th'.

I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):

Thank you for your letter informing me that I cannot have a deputation to Full Council because my email was sent on Monday September 1st and the deadline was Friday August 29th.

I sent my email in response to a Tweet from Brent Council which quite clearly stated that the deadline was Noon on Monday September 1st. The Tweet was sent out by the Council on August 29th.

I therefore repeat my request to speak to full Council on the issue of appointing a Permanent Chief Executive.

I received the following letter  from Fiona Ledden in response:

Thank you for your email in response to my letter. 

Please accept our apologies for the confusion. The Tweet you refer to was published in error and this is something I shall follow up. 

I refer you to Standing Order 39 in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution “Any person wishing to make a deputation shall give written notice to the Director of Legal and Procurement of the title and summary of the content of the deputation not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting”. The deadline for deputations was 29 August 2014. 

As stated in my original response to your email, you will receive a written response to your question in due course.

Brent Council has about 8,000 followers, some of whom will have retweeted the notice, so that is some error!

I am used to Fiona Ledden's method when challenged, she basically seeks to grind you down and then eventually close down any correspondence.  There are several guest blogs on Wembley Matters that testify to this method.

Undaunted I replied again this morning:

Dear Ms Ledden,

I am afraid that i am not satisfied with your response.  An invitation that went out to almost 8,000 followers of Brent Council on Twitter, and was then further distributed by some of them, cannot simply be dismissed as an 'error'.

Furthermore even the 5 day's notice in Standing Orders does not say '5 working days'.  Even if we take that to be what is meant, a deadline of Noon on Monday would give 5-1/2 days between the deadline and the evening meeting on September 8th. That is Monday afternoon, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and the following Monday.

I therefore ask you to reconsider my request to speak as a delegation to the Full Council on September 8th on the issue of appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.

 You may not be surprised to learn that I have had no reply.  

If Muhammed Butt and his Cabinet were genuine in their commitment to give the public a voice in representation and decision making, it seems that their desires are being thwarted.

In the Standing Orders approved by the Council at their first meeting Fiona Ledden granted some fairly draconian powers over selecting delegations to speak at full Council meetings. No one from any party questioned these powers although they were commented on here:

Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

So if I complain the issue will get caught up in the complaints procedure and therefore cannot be raised by me or anyone else.  If I make a fuss then it could be labelled vexatious. And if I suggest that perhaps something is being hidden or avoided, or someone being protected, then that could be defamatory.

If all else fails then Ms Ledden can refuse the deputation on the the grounds that it is inappropriate for 'any other reason'.

Regular readers will remember that Ms Ledden wrote to  Wembley Matters 'requring' us to remove documentation about the Audit and Investigation team's report on allegations against Brent's Acting Head of Human Resources LINK We refused to comply on grounds of public interest.

Is there any councillor out there who will stand up and question this nonsense?

Diminishing democracy in Brent - an update

At the time of the local elections the Brent Green Party called for an independent investigation into the following issues in Brent Council:

1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department 
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution

To which a reader added:
6. Instances of council policies, procedures, standing orders, scheme of delegation etc being circumvented.

Secondly, there is the important issue of the appointment of Chief Executive.  Christine Gilbert's acting role was extended by the Brent Executive  until after the local elections on the recommendation of Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement. The report stated:

The recruitment process for a new permanent  Chief Executive should be delayed because the current recruitment process for  three other CEs in London boroughs would limit the quality of candidates, to allow the restructuring of council senior management to go ahead smoothly, and  to ensure continuity and reputation management over the move to the Civic Centre and the 2014 local elections.

No independent investigation has been launched by the new Labour administration and no open recruitment process has started for a permanent Chief Executive.

Clean up tasks for the new Labour Brent Executive

As the new Labour group prepares to meet to decide the size, portfolios and membership of the new Executive, just a reminder of the issues that need to be addressed.

First there is the matter of the Human Resources management at the Council and associated issues of interim contracts and salaries paid into private companies.

The Green Party has called for an independent investigation of:

1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department 
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution

To which a reader has added:
6. Instances of council policies, procedures, standing orders, scheme of delegation etc being circumvented.

Secondly, there is the important issue of the appointment of Chief Executive.  Christine Gilbert's acting role was extended by the Brent Executive  until after the local elections on the recommendation of Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement. The report stated:

The recruitment process for a new permanent  Chief Executive should be delayed because the current recruitment process for  three other CEs in London boroughs would limit the quality of candidates, to allow the restructuring of council senior management to go ahead smoothly, and  to ensure continuity and reputation management over the move to the Civic Centre and the 2014 local elections. 

At the time Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, opposed the extension and raised the important issue of how the permanent appointment would be made.  Given the new overwhelmingly Labour composition of the council and the revelations about previous connections between members of the Corporate Management Team at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets, as well as personal relationship connections, a transparent recruitment process is essential.

Such a process would exclude from the recruitment process any officer with such connections and include opposition councillors as well as Labour backbenchers.

Thirdly, there is the task of ending all interim arrangements so that a permanent team with fully compliant contracts and paid through the council payroll are in place for the next four years. 

Respecting Brent Council's Constitution

This is the 'Soap Box' delivered by local resident Philip Grant at the Kingsbury Connects forum last night. Apparently it was well received by the 40 or so people present.

I will begin by reading three short extracts from Brent’s Constitution:

The purpose of the Constitution is to support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision-making. (Article 1.4)

The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication. (Article 10.1)

The Council recognises that meaningful participation can only take place ... where community spirit is fostered so that people care enough to want to take part, and are encouraged to do so. (Part of Article 10.2)

Last October I was one of six local history society members who “cared enough” to take part in a stakeholder meeting at the Civic Centre, to contribute ideas which will help the Council to draft a new Museum and Archives Strategy. That Strategy will go out for public consultation next month, and be decided this Spring.

At the meeting on 16 October we asked that a staff restructuring exercise at Museum and Archives should be put “on hold” until the new Strategy was in place. The Head of Libraries, Arts and Heritage, who had only told staff about her plans the previous month, would not discuss this, claiming it was ‘an internal matter’.

Our request made sense, because until the Strategy had been consulted on and decided, how could anyone know what staff would be needed to deliver it? This Officer’s actions were undermining any effective consultation on the Strategy, because she was imposing her ideas of what staffing the service needed, while the decision-making process was still taking place.

I contacted Senior Officers at Environment and Neighbourhoods about this breach of the commitments in Brent’s Constitution. They ignored the constitutional point and simply backed their Officer’s actions, refusing to discuss the matter further. I complained to Brent’s Interim Chief Executive, and she also declined to take any action, while sidestepping the clear breach of Brent’s Constitution which was involved.

This is one of a number of examples I have come across in the past three years where Brent’s Officers have ignored what are supposed to be Council commitments about consulting with the community, and engaging in proper two-way communication. 

I believe that much better results can be achieved for our community by local people, Council Officers and Councillors working together. I try to work positively with the Council in areas where I can help, but community involvement needs to be seen to work in practice.

I have written an open letter to the Leader of the Council, and to the leaders of the other political parties on the Council, about this problem. I would ask that they work together to find a solution to it, so that everyone at Brent Council respects the commitments in its Constitution, for the benefit of our community.

Agenda for Monday's meeting of Brent Council - the last at Brent Town Hall

Brent Council meets at 7.30pm on Monday at Brent Town Hall. It will be  preceded by a special meeting to confer the Freedom of Brent. This will be the last Council meeting at Brent Town Hall. The next Brent Council Executive meeting will be in the Boardroom at the Civic Centre.

The agenda below includes the decision on continuing Christine Gilbert's interim Chief Executive position until after the 2014 local elections:

	5. Report from Muhammed Butt  the leader of the Council LINK  6.Questions from the Opposition and other Non- Executive Members Questions will be put to the Executive
	Reports from the Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Committees PDF 97 KB 7. This report provides a summary of the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees in accordance with Standing Order 14 and covers the period since last reported to Full Council in January 2013.
	Borough Plan 2013-14 PDF 146 KB 8. This report sets out – through its attached appendix – a proposed revision of the Borough Plan for 2013 – 2014. The Plan and its detailed targets have been the subject of consultation with Executive Members and Partners since March 2013. Additional documents: Borough Plan attach , item 8. PDF 359 KB
.	Wembley Area Action Plan - Submission for examination in public PDF 483 KB 9. On 11 March the Executive agreed the Wembley Area Action Plan for public consultation and then, subject to Full Council approval, to submit the draft Plan to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.  In light of the consultation three relatively small amendments are proposed to enable a sound draft Plan to be formally submitted. Full Council is asked to approve the amendments set out in paragraph 3.3 below and to agree the Plan be formally submitted.  The draft Plan is attached as Appendix 1. Additional documents: wembley-plan-app (small) , item 9. PDF 8 MB
	Establishment of the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board PDF 103 KB 10. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 requires that the Council appoints a Health and Wellbeing Board, the membership of which is largely set out in statute. The purpose of the Board is to assess the health needs of the Brent population and produce a strategy to address those needs and to encourage the provision of integrated health and social care services.
	Changes to health scrutiny PDF 310 KB 11. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 which came into force on 1 April 2013 make some changes to the Council’s health scrutiny role and the Council now has a choice about how those functions are carried out by the Council.
	Review of and changes to the constitution PDF 343 KB 12. This report is in two parts; the first part sets out changes recommended following a detailed review of certain parts of the Constitution; most particularly delegations to officers, operation of Full Council, and call in arrangements. The second part addresses recommended changes of a more administrative nature and those arising from changes in the law. Additional documents: Appendix 1 to Constitution Report , item 12. PDF 1 MB Appendix 2 to Constitution Report , item 12. PDF 831 KB
	Appointment of permanent Chief Executive PDF 78 KB 13. This report concerns the proposed timescale for the appointment to the Chief Executive post and consequential interim arrangements.
	14. Motions To debate any motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 45.
	15. Urgent business At the discretion of the Mayor to consider any urgent business.

Tony McNulty gives a helping hand to Brent Labour

There was an interesting tweet from Cllr Krupesh Hirani yesterday when he was out campaigning for Labour in Dudden Hill ward.

Tony McNulty is the former Labour MP for Harrow East who resigned his ministerial position after  allegations that he claimed expenses for a second home, occupied by his parents, which was only 8 miles away from his primary residence. As a minister McNulty had said, 'We are absolutely determined to stop benefit thieves stealing from the British taxpayer.'

McNulty is married to Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council. Gilbert's arrangement for her salary to be paid into her private company Christine Gilbert Associates LINK though legal, have come in for criticism.

Yesterday I blogged that  a report by Fiona Ledden, to be considered by full council, recommends that the permanent Chief Executive post is not advertised until after the 2014 Council Elections.

One of the stated reasons is:

Council will be aware that there will be an election in the Borough in May 2014 when all Council seats will be up for election and this is clearly an important matter for the authority not only in terms of operational management but also in relation to reputation management. The continuance of the current interim arrangements will ensure that the overall planning and management for that election can be organised and properly overseen by an interim Chief Executive who has developed a full understanding of the organisation.

It is reassuring that so much trouble is being taken to protect the reputation of the council.

Brent's Chief Exec being paid through private company rather than payroll

 The Local Government Chronicle, following a Freedom of Information request,  has established that Christine Gilbert, Brent's Interim Chief Executive, is being paid via her private company rather than Brent Payroll. LINK

Christine Gilbert Associates will be paid £100,000 for 6 month's work.

Pressure on the BBC over similar arrangements for their staff led to a change of policy.

Lively Brent Council conference expected tomorrow

People are getting in touch with disbelief about the latest turn of events in Brent and asking what's the suspension of Clive Heaphy. I don't know what the specific allegation is but gross misconduct has to be pretty serious. Things such as racism, sexism, misuse of IT systems, major breaches of confidentiality would all be covered but it could be something quite technical. Remember these are only allegations and the council has a duty to investigate to see if they have any basis. Suspension is a neutral act while an investigation takes place and doesn't imply guilt. The same applies in the case of teachers and headteachers.

Meanwhile the Brent Executive and Senior Officers and Managers have a conference tomorrow which was arranged long ago. It should be interesting. Any flies on the wall should get in touch!

Former Ofsted chief takes over as Acting Brent Chief Executive

With amazing timing Brent Council has announced, on the eve of the Brent Education Debate (Copland High School, Wembley 7pm tomorrow), that it has appointed Christine Gilbert former Ofsted Chief Inspector, as Acting Chief Executive. Before that she was the Chief Executive of Tower Hanmets.  She is expected to start in November and will remain in post until the permanent new Chief  Executive is appointed, which could take several months.

This is what the Guardian said about her soon after she moved from Ofsted when Michael Gove became Secretary of State for Education:

A shy media performer, Gilbert is known for being tough on schools. She triggered controversy with headteachers by raising the bar for inspections, insisting that a "satisfactory" grading would no longer be enough and that all schools should be aiming to be rated at least "good", if not "outstanding".

Ofsted inspection results have improved steadily over the period. Most recently, she claimed that too many lessons in English schools are still "dull and inspiring".

She was heavily criticised over Ofsted's role in the inspection of Haringey council during the period when Peter Connolly – known as Baby P – was killed. She admitted failings in the inspection system that rated the council "good" during that period, though insisted she was already reforming the system.

There were suggestions that Gilbert was seen as too close to the previous Labour government. A headteacher by the age of 32, she was head of education at Tower Hamlets, where she dramatically improved schools, before being appointed to Ofsted in 2006. She is married to the former Labour minister Tony McNulty.

McNulty lost his Harrow East seat at the 2010 election. He resigned from his government position earlier after press allegations over his expenses.

Muhammed Butt announcing the appointment said:

I am delighted that Christine has agreed to accept the post. She has a wealth of local government experience at the most senior level and will provide inspirational leadership to the council in the months ahead.

Brent is proud of its achievements to date and although already a high performing organisation we are committed to providing even better services to residents under the Council's new leadership team. Residents can expect to see a range of exciting transformations in the quality of services we provide to the local community.

Gilbert is likely to have a major influence on the 2012-13 budget which will include more cuts to local services as well as a possible 2.5% rise in Council Tax.

Any shift in cuts strategy after Daniel's departure?

There is no official news of the pay-off that Gareth Daniel is likely to get following his departure as Chief Executive but informed speculation starts at £1m.  His salary was more than £200,000 and there are precedents in Brent for handsome pay-offs of senior officers including that of a former Director of Education.

The cover arrangements for the post are in several stages:  Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement, will be the immediate stand-in but she will be replaced by an 'external interim Chief Executive' in the next few weeks, pending the appointment of a new Chief Executive which could take several months.

If the clash between Daniel as Chief Executive and Muhammed Butt as leader was over cuts, then budget plans could be in for some revision as well as the crucial decision over whether to raise Council Tax. This is an area where senior council officers (4 out of 6 of whom declared their support for Daniel) are likely to intervene in the interregnum which coincides with preparation for next year's budget. It is here that the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects will be influential.

Brent Council Executive does not seem to have considered the possible deletion of the Chief Executive post as some councils have done LINK

Fiona Ledden, in my experience of  observing council meetings, is a woman of few words, but those she does utter, as perhaps befits her legal background, are always on the side of caution and following the letter of the law.

Brent Council: Who's in charge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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