Brent Council and Cara Davani – The Last Post...(and, How much should the Council expect to pay for a bucket of whitewash?)

Cllr. Muhammed Butt and Cara Davani
(from a Brent Council photograph celebrating International Women’s Day, March 2015)

Guest post by Philip Grant (please note as this is a long article it has been posted with a continuation page. Click at the end of the article to read all.

On 5 December 2017, three hours before the start of an Audit Advisory Committee meeting, Brent Council’s auditor issued his decision letters on the objections against its 2015/16 accounts over the payment of £157,610 to its former HR Director, Cara Davani. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the decision letter I received, so that it is in the public domain for anyone to read if they wish to. READ IT HERE

In summary the auditor decided that the payment was not unlawful and that he would not issue a Public Interest Report over the issues the objectors had raised. He did, however, say that ‘there are a number of governance areas that we consider that the Council should strengthen’, and made several recommendations, mainly over keeping formal written records of legal advice given and of meetings (a familiar problem at Brent!).

I am sure that the auditor believes he exercised his professional judgement properly in coming to his decision. According to his “progress report” ahead of the 5 December meeting, he had also submitted his ‘statement of reasons on the objection’ to his Regulator, PSAA (Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Local Government Association) for comment.

Maybe I am a “loser” who finds it difficult to accept that he was wrong. But I can’t help feeling that I, and the four other local people who objected to the £157k payment, have been let down by a system which is meant to ensure that local electors can challenge the potential misuse of funds by their Council through a ‘fair and impartial process’. I cannot change the auditor’s decision, but I can set out why I think it was wrong. 

At the heart of the objections were two decisions, both made by the then interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert. One, in May/June 2015, was to make the £157,610 leaving payment to Ms Davani. The other was not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in September 2014, and I will look at how the auditor dealt with that decision first.

Decision not to take disciplinary action against Cara Davani following the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgment in September 2014:

In the course of his “Findings”, the auditor says:

‘I conclude there is nothing to persuade me that this decision was not within the range of broadly reasonable decisions open to the Council.’

In fact, as all five objectors had pointed out to the auditor, the decision was not even ‘broadly reasonable’; it was so unreasonable that no reasonable person, or Council, in possession of the facts could have made it. The auditor had started his paragraph by saying:

‘Whether or not disciplinary procedures against Cara Davani should have been taken following the Employment Tribunal judgment was a decision for her line manager, Christine Gilbert, having regard to internal policies and guidance and taking account of the facts leading up to, and arising from, the hearing. We have been informed there is no documentation recording the decision on this.’

One of my fellow objectors, with experience of employment matters, had told the auditor that the evidence of Ms Davani’s actions in the judgment was ‘sufficient …to justify any reasonable employer to summarily dismiss Ms Davani for gross misconduct.’ The auditor had been given first hand evidence of Carolyn Downs, Brent’s current Chief Executive, admitting privately to the objectors in December 2016, that the Council should have taken disciplinary action against Ms Davani in September 2014, and that if she had been Chief Executive in those circumstances, it would have done.

The auditor had also been shown that Brent’s own Disciplinary Policy and Procedure documents made it clear that if an employee is found to have committed "gross misconduct", this will normally result in dismissal. The types of action by an employee 'which would result in disciplinary action for gross misconduct', as set out  in those documents, included four examples of actions by Ms Davani, made as findings of fact by the Tribunal in its judgment.

Because Christine Gilbert had not kept to Brent’s own policies and guidance when deciding not to take disciplinary action, it was pointed out to the auditor that she had also shown a number of the examples of actions which could have resulted in disciplinary action against her for gross misconduct. So why had she not taken the proper action against Cara Davani, and why was there ‘no documentation recording the decision’?

My submissions to the auditor in August 2017 gave the reasons why, but his decision letter dismisses these, merely saying: ‘whilst I have noted your allegations, I have not seen any supporting evidence.’ I had provided evidence, including text from a written statement made to me in 2016 by a “Civic Centre insider” who was involved at the time, alleging that Ms Gilbert and Cllr. Muhammed Butt had considered the matter in isolation, that they were actively protecting Cara Davani, and that they communicated over it through their private email accounts so that there would be no documentary evidence in the Council’s records.

I had to keep the name of the “insider” secret, as that person did not trust their allegations would be properly investigated, and feared the possible personal / career consequences of having their identity disclosed. I accepted that this meant their evidence was only “hearsay”, but in the absence of any documentary evidence from the Council, their evidence on the matter was also “hearsay”, so why was their version preferred?

Decision to pay Cara Davani £157,610 as “compensation for loss of office” in 2015:

The auditor concludes his “Findings” on this point by saying:

‘There was nothing in the documentation I have seen to indicate that any amounts paid to Cara Davani were unlawful.’ 

He had seen the original documentation held by Brent Council from May and June 2015 in relation to this payment, and received representations on it from the Council, but had not allowed me or the other objectors to see it.

I have already covered the reasons why this ‘material information’ could and should have been shared with us, so that we could comment on it fully, in a previous guest blog LINK . The information included not only legal advice, but also other correspondence and documents which would have set out what information was given to the QC, and what was not, on which the advice the Council relied on justify the payment was based. It was made clear to the auditor that it was impossible for us to support our objections properly without sight of that information.

The auditor’s response to this, in the “Background” section of his decision letter, was:

‘I am satisfied that the provisional views letter sent to you on 3 August 2017 read with the Audit Committee minutes and Conrad Hall’s letter dated 14 December 2016 gave you sufficient information in order to have provided comments to me, such that there has been no unfairness in not sharing the advice.’

In effect, he is saying that the primary documents are not ‘material information’, but that the interpretation of those documents given to him by a Brent Council officer is, and that it:

‘… contains the material facts on which we have relied upon when reaching our decision. For this reason and given that the Council has not waived its legal professional privilege, I have not shared the actual documents containing or recording the legal advice with you.’

In other words, the auditor has reached his decision based on what Brent Council has told him, and has not shared with the objectors any actual documents related to the payment we objected to because Brent Council did not want him to. I am sure any reasonable person will understand why I believe that the process by which the auditor reached his decision was neither fair, nor impartial.

As the auditor would not allow us to see the “material documents”, the objectors had to make their “further comments” on the best information available to them. In his “Background” section the auditor said:

‘Following the Employment Tribunal above, there was a breakdown in trust and relationships between some Members of the Council and Cara Davani.  … This was considered to be an ongoing reputational risk to the Council and that it was difficult to see how Cara Davani could be effective in her role as Human Resources Director, working with Members, going forwards.’

The reputational damage had already been done in September 2014, with the facts about the appalling treatment of Rosemarie Clarke by the Council and Cara Davani receiving wide publicity after the Tribunal judgment was published, and by the failure to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani. Given the situation described, why was nothing done about it until May 2015? My comments gave the auditor evidence of why – showing that Ms Davani was being “protected” by both Christine Gilbert and Cllr. Butt – but that by May 2015 the Council was selecting a new permanent Chief Executive, so that Ms Davani would soon lose that joint protection.

The auditor’s view of the prelude to the “settlement agreement” objected to, following on from the passage quoted above, is described as follows:

‘Meetings took place between the Leader, Chief Executive and various Members to try and resolve the differences but relationships did not improve.  We understand these meetings did not have minutes taken. Following discussions between the Leader and the Chief Executive, it was determined that it would be in the best interests of the Council if Cara Davani and the Council parted company and that legal advice should be sought on possible ways forwards.’

It does not appear that any documentary record exists of those discussions, but the next step is set out in the auditor’s “Findings” as follows:

‘Legal advice was sought in May 2015, which concluded the Council did not have a case to conduct a fair dismissal, noting that Cara Davani had informed the Council that she would take the Council to an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal if her employment was terminated.   Given no disciplinary procedures had previously been taken in respect of the findings from the Employment Tribunal, in these circumstances and given the legal advice obtained, it does not appear unreasonable for the Council to decide to proceed with a settlement.’

The ‘legal advice’ referred to was contained in an undated note, made by the Council’s Chief Finance Officer (why was the Council’s Chief Legal Officer, a solicitor, not involved?) about a discussion between Christine Gilbert and a QC, which he had been the only other party to. It was apparently not checked for accuracy by the QC who gave the advice, given the auditor’s recommendation that such advice ‘should be recorded formally immediately after the call and key issues confirmed with the legal adviser.’

---

Does Councillor Butt have too much power?

-->
Guest blog by Philip Grant

The article below was submitted as a comment on the blog about the possible delay in filling the Stronger Communities Lead Member role on Brent’s Cabinet LINK t
I am repeating it here, for comment and discussion, as part of Local Democracy Week.

In my earlier comment, I explained why I believe that Cllr. Butt is within his rights, under Brent’s Constitution, not to appoint a new Lead Member for Stronger Communities straight away, but to take on the responsibilities of that role in addition to his role as Leader. This does not mean that I believe it is the right (i.e. correct) thing for him to do. Overall, I believe that Cllr. Butt has too much power, and some of it is a result of an abuse of Brent Council’s Constitution.

That Constitution (in its own words) ‘…sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that decision making is efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. Some of the procedures are required by law, while others are a matter for the Council. The Constitution is divided into 8 Parts. …. In particular, Parts 3 and 4 set out the rules governing the conduct of the Council’s business and which part of the Council is responsible for various functions.’

“Responsibility for Functions” is an important area, which should mean that there are “checks and balances” to ensure that power is shared across the Council, so that no single person or group within it has too much (to guard against that power being abused). The Constitution gives the Leader, or the Leader together with the Cabinet, considerable powers, but there are also ‘functions which cannot be exercised by the Cabinet’, ‘functions not to be the sole responsibility of the Cabinet’ and ‘functions that may only be exercised by Full Council’.

One area of particular concern is the General Purposes Committee, which ‘carries out a number of functions on which the Cabinet cannot take decisions, including public rights of way, setting the Council Tax base and approving staffing matters’.  The committee has eight members, and the Constitution used to say that at least one of these must be a member of the Executive (the previous title for the Cabinet). That proviso, which gave a very strong hint that most of the committee should be made up of back-bench councillors, has been removed, and for the past few years seven of the eight members have been Cabinet members, with the official Opposition Leader as the eighth.

Cllr. Butt is Chair of the General Purposes Committee, and of its Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee. This has given him considerable influence over the Council’s senior staffing structure, who is appointed to the Senior Officer posts, and the terms on which they are appointed. There are suspicions that, during the time that Christine Gilbert was interim Chief Executive and Cara Davani was HR Director, the Leader of the Council may have been complicit in some of their alleged misconduct over staffing matters.

The appointment of the Council’s Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) is one of the functions which can only be exercised by Full Council, and not by the Cabinet or the Leader. Despite this, Cllr. Butt was able to appoint Christine Gilbert in September 2012 as ‘interim Chief Executive’, supposedly for a few months while the Council advertised for and appointed a permanent Chief Executive. In June 2013, Full Council was asked to extend Christine Gilbert’s role as interim Chief Executive – it agreed to do so, but only for a FIXED TERM which should have ended in June 2014.

The permanent post was still not advertised, and at the meeting in September 2014, Cllr. Butt extended Christine Gilbert’s tenure (eventually until September 2015) without seeking the consent of Full Council. The minutes recorded:

‘The Leader referred to the decision taken in June 2013 regarding the appointment of a new Chief Executive.  He stated that the external auditors were reporting back on how the Council was operating and whilst there was progress being made, stability within the Council would enable further progress to be made.  The current arrangements would therefore remain in place until a recruitment process began in the new year which would tie in with the launch of the new Borough Plan.’

Does Cllr. Butt have too much power? I would suggest that he does, and that the Council’s Constitutional Working Group, chaired by its properly appointed Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, should consider ways to ensure that the functions of the General Purposes Committee and its sub-committees are carried out independently of the Council Leader and the Cabinet.

Philip Grant.

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:

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!

The Dreams of Mo and the Race for Opportunity Awards

Guest blog by Nan Tewari
 

Brent acceptance speech for race equality award

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teach First.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A salute to Philip Grant for his work on the Davani case

Nan Tewari, who first raised the issue of the behaviour of Brent Council Human Resources on this blog LINK wrote the following comment on the post below about Brent Council settling the Rosemarie Clarke case 'out of court'. I think her comment deserves more prominence.

What stands out in this sorry saga is the power of one individual's tenacious struggle to expose the truth and how that struggle carried out in the public domain, i.e. Wembley Matters, bolstered its effects to ensure a massive degree of success.

Philip Grant's relentless pursuit of matters of fact in this case, together with Martin Francis shining a light on that pursuit, has had the powerful effect of seeing off Cara Davani, Andrew Potts and Christine Gilbert.

After stringing out the Chief Exective 'interim' role for 3 years, Brent Council and Gilbert would have been quite comfortable for her to throw her hat into the ring for the permanent position and for her to have been appointed based on her sterling record of failure to follow basic procedures and nurturing conflicts of interest.

Andrew Potts, business and personal partner of Davani, emerged as a beneficiary of the legal department restructure that had been conducted by Davani and signed (nodded?) off by Gilbert.

Davani herself was secure enough to work on adding such unlikely strings to her bow as taking on responsibility for equality and diversity as well as wanting the acclaim of a Business in the Community award to trumpet the Council's equality achievements as a means of countering the public disgrace at the Watford Tribunal and the public disrepute she brought the council into, for blatant race discrimination.

And Philip's efforts have also exposed for all to see (the video of the council meeting would probably warrant an 18 certificate in the scheme of these things!!) the underlying ill manners and discourtesy of Cllr Butt and Cllr Dr Helen Carr BA (Hons); M Phil (Oxon); Cert TEFL; Dip; DPil who appear singularly unable to understand the balanced deportment required of public figures.

So at a time when it appears that we the public are powerless against those in power, Philip Grant has led the way in showing that we can put the frighteners on public institutions whatever they may choose to admit or however much they may attempt to conceal.

Philip, we salute you.