PAY OFF FOB OFF: Christine Gilbert’s “answer” to the questions about a “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 
Christine Gilbert promised me a reply by today to the two questions I had first put to her on 9 July, and repeated in my open letter to her a week later. 

I said that I would share her reply with “Wembley Matters” readers, and it came in an email to me at 5.55pm today:

‘Dear Mr Grant, 

Thank you for your various letters and emails to the Chief Executive in relation to Cara Davani, which have been passed to me for reply.

Ms Davani, then Director of HR and Administration, left the council at the end of June 2015.  The council is grateful for the significant contribution Cara made over the last three years.

The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.  

In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

Yours sincerely 

Fiona Alderman

Chief Legal Officer

The heading to Ms Alderman’s email was “Recent correspondence”. I replied to it at 8.50pm today, under the heading “Re: Recent correspondence about possible "pay off" to Cara Davani, and your failure to reply to it”, as follows:-

‘Dear Ms Gilbert and Ms Alderman,

I am replying to Ms Alderman’s email to me today at 17:55, headed “Recent correspondence”. I am also writing this to Ms Gilbert, who my correspondence was addressed to, and who must accept the responsibility for answering the two questions which I raised, as Brent’s interim Chief Executive and its Head of Paid Service, and as the person who must know the answers to those questions.

The main statement in your email of 3 August is in exactly the same words as Ms Gilbert’s email to me of 8 July:

‘The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.’

You have not explained why you believe you 'cannot legally disclose', although that is not the main point here. The original reply in these words was to an email of 30 June in which I had made a formal request for information including details of amounts and arrangements in connection with Ms Davani’s departure from Brent Council. You are now using the same reply to my email request of 9 July, repeated in my open letter to Christine Gilbert of 16 July. That request was specifically drafted so that Ms Gilbert did not have to disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure. That request has not been replied to, and I will set it out again here:

‘I believe it is reasonable to ask you again to reply, openly and honestly, to Council staff, elected councillors and publicly to Brent’s residents, to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions I put to you:

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

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

After I first put these questions, Ms Gilbert replied on 10 July: ‘I have passed these to Ms Fiona Alderman, Chief Legal Officer, for her consideration. She will respond to you in due course.’ I now wonder whether her instruction to Ms Alderman was not ‘please reply to these questions on my behalf’, but ‘please find an excuse for not replying to these questions, and delay responding to the email for as long as possible’. 

The whole point of this correspondence, from my point of view, has been to highlight the serious concerns which many people have expressed over rumours of a “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani, and to seek to resolve those concerns by either getting confirmation that the rumours are unfounded, or by getting those responsible for deciding on such a “pay off” to explain their reasons for agreeing it. That is what Brent’s Constitution, and the principles of conduct in public life, expect of you as senior Council officers in delivering openness and accountability. Instead you seem determined to prevaricate, and not to resolve those serious concerns, which I know that a number of elected councillors share. 

I would ask you to read again my open letter to Christine Gilbert of 16 July 2015, and the question which I included in the letter which I had published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”:

‘What are senior officers at Brent Council trying to hide from us, and why?’

I acknowledge that Ms Alderman did refer to my second question in her email to me today, saying: 

‘In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.’

I accept that the remedies hearing has yet been finalised, but that does not mean that the question I asked cannot be answered now. If Brent has not agreed ‘to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council,’ then the answer to that question should be “yes”. If the Employment Tribunal, based on all the evidence that it heard and read, and the findings of fact that it made from that evidence, decides that any compensation, damages or costs should be awarded against Ms Davani personally, as distinct from the award(s) that it will decide to make against Brent Council (on the basis of its judgement of September 2014), then Brent Council should accept the Tribunal’s decision, and its Chief Executive should commit the Council to do so. 

It might be argued that Brent Council should pay all of the compensation, damages and costs awarded to Ms Clarke, as Ms Davani, though a separately named respondent in the case, was acting as an employee of Brent Council. I dealt with this point in my first email raising concerns over this matter, of 12 June 2015 to my Fryent Ward councillors and copied to the Chief Executive, explaining why, if any award were made against Ms Davani personally, Brent should not pick up the bill:

‘At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent's Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council's HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent's most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.’

I would only add that, in these circumstances, any payment by Brent of any awards made against Ms Davani personally would be a misuse of Council funds.

I look forward to receiving from Christine Gilbert her honest answers to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions above by the end of this week.

I am copying this email to the councillors to whom our previous correspondence on this matter was copied, and will also make it openly available, in the public interest.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.’

Open Letter to Christine Gilbert over rumoured “pay off” to Cara Davani, 16 July 2015

Guest blog by Philip Grant. Christine Gilbert is the current Chief Executive of Brent Council who is due to leave after the summer.

Dear Ms Gilbert,

Further to our recent email correspondence, to which I have still to receive a satisfactory reply, either from you or on your behalf, I regret that I have had to resort to sending a letter to the editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, which was published today, and to writing this open letter to you, which I will be copying to all elected members of Brent Council, and making available to anyone who wishes to publish it.

In case you have not seen the letter in our local newspaper, here is a copy of it:-

This is a matter of genuine public concern. You may feel that it is “none of my business”, but it is my business if money which I have contributed to through my Council Tax, and which should be used for providing local services, is being secretly paid to a former senior officer. Cara Davani left the Council at the end of June 2015, but should have resigned in September 2014 when the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case were made public. When she did not resign, it was your responsibility as interim Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service to take the appropriate action, which any other person on those facts would have seen as using the Council’s disciplinary procedures against her for the gross misconduct which the Tribunal had highlighted.

As a first step in dealing with this mess, which you have allowed to develop through trying to “sweep it under the carpet”, I believe it is reasonable to ask you again to reply, openly and honestly, to Council staff, elected councillors and publicly to Brent’s residents, to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions I put to you a week ago:

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

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

You know the answers to these questions, and I think it is unfair of you to have passed the matter to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer to respond to on your behalf (which she has not yet done).

As I said to you last week, if the honest answers to both of these questions is "yes", then that will be the end of the matter, and it is difficult to understand why you have delayed saying so.

If the answer to one or both of these questions is “no”, then I believe that you have a duty to disclose, particularly to elected councillors, what financial arrangements (other than her basic salary payment to 30 June 2015) have been made or agreed in Brent Council’s name for Ms Davani’s benefit, who made or agreed those arrangements, and what is considered to be the justification for them. You have tried to put off my enquiries about this matter by saying that the Council cannot ‘legally disclose’ any details, and when I hoped to raise this matter at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday evening it was claimed (at short notice by the Head of Executive and Member Services) that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for me to raise this subject at the meeting, because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which “provisions” has still not been disclosed). Whatever the legal excuses, it is surely in the public interest that councillors, staff and residents can be assured that any payments were properly and fairly due.

The way that this matter has been handled by you and other senior officers gives the impression of a “cover-up”, even if the rumours of a “pay off” to Ms Davani prove to have been false. What is needed, on this and any similar issues, is transparency and accountability. I realise that you only have a short time left as Brent’s interim Chief Executive, but please act promptly to resolve this matter on a reasonable basis, so that you do not leave the borough even further in disrepute. Thank you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant

Philip Grant: Open letter to Brent Council on Equalities

Guest blog by Philip Grant. The Equalities Committee agenda and papers can be found HERE

 

Open Letter to Equalities Committee, 9 July 2015

Dear Councillors Pavey, Harrison, Kansagra, Tatler and Thomas,

Congratulations on the first meeting of this new committee next Monday, and my best wishes for its efforts to help improve equalities and HR management at Brent Council. I will not be able to attend that meeting in person, so have not asked to speak as a Deputation at it, but there are points which I would like to make in respect of both main items on your agenda. I will set these out below in this open letter, and hope that you will be able to find time to read my views, and take them into account in your discussions.

Item 5 – Equalities and HR review: action plan

Cllr. Pavey is aware of my views on this matter, but I need to set them out for other committee members, and by way of introduction to my second point below. I had hoped to make this point to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April 2015, but was not allowed to present my Deputation there.

The point relates to Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of equalities-hr-review-app2].  This was prepared by Cara Davani, until recently Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’.  

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposed. This reads:
  

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’ 

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give.  

You may consider that such a concern is far-fetched, but in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case (which Cllr. Pavey’s review was set up to learn the lessons from), a key factor
in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment in that case it says: 

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made.’ 

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence. It is quite likely that one or more of those witnesses was willing to commit perjury in order to cover up who had made the decision, and why it was made, in an attempt to conceal from the Tribunal facts that would have added to the evidence in support of Ms Clarke’s claim.

I do not believe that this was an isolated case of fabricated or false evidence being used by Brent Council in Employment Tribunal cases. I have heard, from someone close to the former Brent Libraries employee involved, although I do not know the full facts or have evidence 

to support the accusation, that false evidence was given at a Tribunal where Brent was “successful” in defending a claim against it for unfair dismissal. In another case (see my P.S. at the end of this letter for details), Brent had to concede a claim against it for unfair dismissal when it realised that its false evidence would not stand up to close examination by the Tribunal.

I would strongly suggest that the “success criteria” I referred to above should be deleted from the Action Plan. “Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would suggest that the “criteria” should be:  

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:  ‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’

Brent Labour fail to grasp nettle of Davani pay-off

I missed last night's Brent Council meeting but checking the Twitter feed it is clear that Labour made no attempt to address the issue of a pay-off to Cara Davani, controversial head of Brent HR, who resigned recently:

Ahead of the meeting Philip Grant had writtent the following email to his ward councillors:

Dear Fryent Ward councillors,

You have probably heard that on Wednesday a Council spokesperson confirmed that Cara Davani, Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, is leaving the Council at the end of June, to take a career break. If you had not heard, you can read the announcement, and reaction to it, at:

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/cara-devani-leaving-brent-council-to.html

While the Council’s statement praises ‘the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years’, it does not mention Ms Davani’s misdeeds, such as her vicious actions against a Brent employee as shown by findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. That case has already cost Brent Council probably a six-figure sum in legal fees, and will land the Council with a further bill, quite possibly a seven-figure sum (i.e. more than £1 million) in compensation, damages and costs when the remedy hearing makes its decision (likely to be in about three months time).

Given this background, and the serious damage done to Brent’s reputation by the finding that the Council “racially discriminated” against Ms Clarke, I am seriously concerned (as are many others) about the financial terms on which Ms Davani may be leaving the Council’s employment. She is leaving at the end of June, and I would not seek to interfere with her salary entitlement up to that date (even though any decent person would have resigned when the judgment was published last September, and any other Chief Executive would have either insisted on that resignation or taken immediate action to dismiss her for gross misconduct). However, that last salary payment should be the only further financial reward that Cara Davani receives from Brent Council.

There should be no other “payoff” or leaving payment of whatever description made to her. If Ms Davani has been “persuaded” to leave now, there is talk of a possible “compromise package” - which, I understand, following changes made to HR procedures during Ms Davani’s reign, would normally be agreed on by either the Director of HR or the Chief Executive. As she is the Director of HR, the Chief Executive (Christine Gilbert) is her friend and former colleague from Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted, who she helped to bring into Brent in 2012, the interim Director of HR is to be Mildred Phillips (another former colleague, first brought into Brent as an interim consultant, then given a permanent position and promoted by Ms Davani to be her deputy), it would not be possible for the amount of any payment, even if one were deserved (which it most certainly would not), to be arrived at on an arm’s length basis. It may be that she is leaving now, while she still has “friends in high places”.

[And please don’t suggest that the terms of any payment might be agreed instead by Brent’s Principal Employment Lawyer - Ms Davani’s personal and business partner, Andy Potts - or by its Chief Operating Officer, Lorraine Langham, another former colleague of Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets and Ofsted. It is the extent of this “cronyism” at high levels in Brent Council that has previously allowed Ms Davani to get away with her actions against Rosemarie Clarke, and other now-former employees of the Council.]

The is another financial aspect of Cara Davani’s leaving Brent which councillors need to ensure is handled properly. The full title of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case is Ms RC Clarke v. 1) The London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. Ms Davani is a separately named respondent in the case, even though it appears that she did not have separate legal representation at the full Tribunal hearing, with Brent’s barrister (at Brent’s expense) effectively defending her as well. There should be no agreement made under which Brent agrees to pay, or indemnify Ms Davani in respect of, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally as the second respondent in the case. I also believe that Brent should make clear to Ms Davani that she will need to arrange and pay for her own legal representation in the case after she leaves the Council’s employment at the end of June. 

At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent’s Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council’s HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent’s most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.

I hope you will agree with the two propositions which I have highlighted, and that you will take early action to see that these are put in place. I would suggest that you could ask for “Departure from the Council of the Director of HR and Administration” as an item to be put on the agenda for the Full Council meeting on 22 June, with the current Chief Executive (or her representative, if Ms Gilbert is not available to attend) making a statement about Ms Davani’s departure, and then giving members the chance to comment or ask questions. The Chief Executive should give at least outline details of any planned payments, over and above her basic salary to 30 June 2015, which are proposed, and in particular, be asked to confirm that Ms Davani will be personally liable for any award made in respect of her as the second respondent in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and that Brent will not pay, or indemnify her in any way, in respect of such an award against Cara Davani personally. I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, for her information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and let me have at least a brief response to my comments, which reflect the views of many people, even though I am the one articulating them to you. Please feel free to forward this email to any of your fellow councillors, if you wish to seek their views before deciding what action you should take in response to it. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

Reliable source reports that Cara Davani has resigned her position on Brent Council

A reliable Brent Council source reports that Brent Human Resources staff were called into a meeting yesterday to be told that Cara Davani, head of Human Resources had resigned. I am still seeking offiicial confirmation from Brent Council that this is the case,

It was perhaps no coincidence that Carolyn Downs, the new Chief Executive Officer, whose appointment will be confirmed at the next Full Council, was in the Civic Centre yesterday.

Cara Davani has been on annual leave.

Cllr Michael Pavey, who wrote the report on Brent Human Resources is currently on holiday.

Pressure has been on the Council to take action since an Employment Tribunal found that Cara Davani and Brent Council had racially discrminated against Rosemarie Clarke, victimised her and constructively dismissed her. LINK

Fiona Ledden, also named in the case has already left Brent Council and Christine Gilbert will leave in the summer.

As recently as April 30th Cllr Muhammed Butt sat with Cara Davani at the Scrutiny Committee, in an apparent act of solidarity, when Philip Grant tried to speak to the Committee about the Employment Tribunal case. The Committee voted not to hear him. At one point Butt heckled Philip Grant. LINK

Except for Cllr Daly members of that Scrutiny Committee have now been replaced. 

A quick search of this blog will reveal Philip Grant's tireless attempt, backed by meticulous research, to persuade Brent Council of the need to take action on this issue.

If the news is confirmed Philip and Nan Tewari,  who first wrote about the case, deserve thanks as active citizens for standing up for truth and transparency in local government. 

Final outcome of Tory showdown at Brent's OK Corrall uncertain

Last night's Full Meeting of Brent Council must have left the new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs wondering about the tough task ahead in getting the Council out of its slough of despond, while Christine Gilbert could be forgiven for celebrating her forthcoming liberation by performing  cartwheels in the Civic Centre atrium.

The showdown between the two groups of Tory Councillors dominated the business part of the meeting but when the gunfire died down no one could agree on the final outcome.

The 56 Labour councillors may have decided to recognise the Kenton Tories as the principal opposition with the status and funding that goes with that or the decision may have been  handed over to a constitutional working party to negotiate on before the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee.

CLARIFICATION (sic) These are the responses I got this morning:
 

Brent Council Press Office:

The group led by Cllr Kansagra was voted in as the principal opposition last night.  

Cllr Michael Pavey (Deputy Leader - Labour)

As it stands Kenton are the principal Opposition. There is a meeting of the constitution committee next week which will review the situation,  but only a vote by Full Council or a change in the number of members in either Tory Group can change this.

The next challenge is to try and allocate Committees between the two.

Cllr Joel Davidson (Briondesbury Park Conservatives)

What happened is that Mo Butt has chosen the Kenton Group to be Principal Opposition, that's what he got his Group to vote for last night. That means that Kansagra and Colwill will once again draw the allowances - 12k and 8k - that come with being Leader and Deputy Leader.

The constitutional working party, if there is one, is supposed to negotiate between the 2 Opposition Groups - Brent Tories and Kenton/Butt Group - as to who sits on the 6 main committees - GP, planning, equalities etc. 

If we can't agree, as seems very likely, then Council will again vote to give all the main committee posts to the Kenton/Butt Group.  It's another sad day for democracy in Brent when a Dear Leader can hand-pick a pliant Opposition which has no political affiliation and is committed to giving him as easy a ride as possible.  As I asked Butt last night - is 56 Labour Cllrs not enough that you need to co-opt 3 more AND make them the 'Opposition'??  

Meanwhile the tweets can tell the story:

Carolyn Downs to be new Brent Council Chief Executive

Official Brent Council Press release

Carolyn Downs has been announced as the new chief executive of Brent Council.

Chief executive of the Local Government Association since November 2011, Carolyn will bring a wealth of experience to Brent.

Prior to her appointment at the Local Government Association, Carolyn was chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, where her role was to drive performance and secure a stronger financial future.

Carolyn was also previously deputy permanent secretary and director general of corporate performance at the Ministry of Justice. She was responsible for all corporate services, including finance, estates, personnel, risk management, business planning and communications.

From 2003 to 2009, Carolyn was Chief Executive of Shropshire County Council, where she was responsible for a budget of £500 million a year and a staff of 12,000.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

"I am delighted that after a rigorous and competitive recruitment process, we are able to offer the role of chief executive at Brent Council to Carolyn Downs.

"Carolyn was the outstanding candidate in what was a highly competitive recruitment process, and I am confident that she will bring with her a wealth of public sector experience and enthusiasm to Brent, at a time when this council and local authorities everywhere face such unprecedented challenges.

"I have no doubt at all that with Carolyn's passion for and experience in local government and her drive to succeed, that we have appointed the right person to help navigate the borough through the challenging times ahead and help make Brent a better borough."

Christine Gilbert, the current chief executive at Brent Council, said:

"I would like to congratulate Carolyn on her appointment, her experience and skills will be a huge asset to Brent.

"It has been a great privilege to have served as the chief executive for Brent Council. Brent is a wonderful place and I know Carolyn will be warmly welcomed both inside and outside the civic centre.

"I wish her every success in her new role."

Carolyn will take up the role later in the year, once her appointment has been ratified at a full council meeting on 22 June 2015.

End of Press Release

Further information about Carolyn Downs from the LGA

Carolyn Downs has been Chief Executive of the LGA since November 2011.

Before this she was chief executive of the Legal Services Commission where her role was to drive performance and secure a stronger financial future.

She was also previously deputy permanent secretary and director general of corporate performance at the Ministry of Justice. She was responsible for all corporate services, including finance, estates, personnel, risk management, business planning and communications.

From 2003 to 2009, Carolyn was Chief Executive of Shropshire County Council, where she was responsible for a budget of £500 million a year and a staff of 12,000.

Carolyn had worked for the same council as director of environment and community services since 1999 and before this, worked for a range of other councils including Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Stevenage Borough Council, the London Borough of Haringey, and Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council where she started her working life as a library assistant.

So no connection with Tower Hamlets or Ofsted, just shared intials with the head of Brent HR.

Conservative HQ tell Brent Council Warren's posse are official Conservative Group

The issue of who represent the principal opposition in Brent Council is to be resolved tonight at a Full Council Meeting.

On the eve of the meeting the Leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt,  and Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive, have been forwarded the following email from the Conservative Party:

As you are aware it had been decided that the Conservative Party would formally recognise the Annual General Meeting of the Brent Conservative Group that was held on 13^th May.  All conservative party candidates elected to the Brent Local Authority were invited and the meeting was independently chaired by a North West London Area Officer.  All those entitled to attend were given proper notice and details of the nomination procedure for group officers.

Cllrs Warren, Shaw and Davidson attended the meeting.  However, Cllrs Kansagra, Colwill and Maurice chose not to attend and have subsequently refused to take part in the group.

As a result it is the Group led by Cllr Warren that the Party will formally recognise as the Brent Conservative Group.  Furthermore unless Cllrs Kansagra, Colwill and Maurice join the Group they will not be authorised to stand as Conservative Party candidates at future elections.

Please do feel free to contact me if I can be of any further help,

Mark Roberts.

Voluntary Party Manager for the Conservative Party

Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, North West London, Oxfordshire, Suffolk

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.

Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Brent’s cover-up continues (or, another Deputation that the Council would not hear!)

Guest blog by Philip Grant

“Wembley Matters” readers may be interested to know what happened at Brent’s Scrutiny Committee meeting this evening (Thursday 30 April). 

Before it started, I was treated to the sight of Cllr. Butt sitting next to Cara Davani (Director of HR and Administration), laughing and joking with her, and pointing me out as the person who had come to present a Deputation about Equalities and HR. I don’t know why the Council Leader was there, except perhaps to impress on the committee members sitting opposite him that Ms Davani was under his protection, so they had better not do anything that might annoy her.

The Chair, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, soon got on to the question of the Deputation from Phil Grant, and said that there was a matter to sort out before I presented it. He asked for my agreement that if I were allowed to speak, I should not refer to any individual legal cases, as Brent’s Chief Legal Officer had advised me earlier in the day. 

I replied that I could not accept this restriction, for the reasons I had set out in an email sent to all of his committee members, and copied to the Legal Officer, some hours ago, which had not been answered. The legal case I wished to refer to was the one which Cllr Pavey’s review had been set up, as Christine Gilbert (interim Chief Executive, and also present) had announced last September, to learn the lessons from that case. As one of the points I wished to make was that an important lesson had not been learned, and both of the points required reference to the case in order to explain the reasons for what I wanted to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on, that case was relevant to committee’s consideration, and could not be ignored.

There was some further discussion with the senior Brent Lawyer, Arnold Meagher, at the meeting, who said that as the case involved had not been fully concluded, I should not be allowed to refer to it. I responded, saying that I would only be referring to “findings of fact” from the judgment in the case, and that judgment was final as it was no longer under appeal. I could not see how any reference to that part of the case would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing, at which the compensation award would be decided. I don’t think that this point was ever answered by Mr Meagher.

Cllr. Choudry said that he would discuss with his committee whether they should allow me to speak, as I would not accept the condition he had set out. There was a rather disjointed “discussion”, with several members of the committee speaking, but I could not follow what they were saying because they forgot to turn their microphones on. It seemed to be about the Legal Officer saying that I could not refer to the legal case I wanted to, but whether they viewed this as legal advice, or a legal instruction to the committee, was unclear. It appeared that the Chair was about to ask the committee to vote on the matter (which under Brent’s Standing Order 69(a)(i) he should have done, with only a simple majority being required to allow a Deputation to be received), but after further mumbled discussions Cllr. Choudry announced that I would not be allowed to present my Deputation, and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Before leaving the meeting, I handed out the dozen printed copies of my Deputation I had taken with me to members of the public, co-opted members of the committee and other councillors present who wanted them, and I am setting out the text of what I would have said below, for anyone who wishes to read it.

Deputation to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April, in respect of item 9:
Cllr. Pavey’s Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan.

I am speaking as an individual, but am aware that many local people, including Council employees and some Brent councillors, share the concerns I am raising.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgment against Brent Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani, finding that a former employee had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed.

Cllr. Pavey’s review of Equalities and HR policies and practices was set up ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. In the foreword to his review he says:

‘Policies are mostly sound. But policies are implemented by people and we need to do more to ensure that they are consistently applied.’

What Cllr. Pavey could not say, because his review’s terms of reference did not allow him to actually consider the Rosemarie Clarke case, was that an important lesson which should be learned is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.

As an example, in guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director you can find statements like: ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Rosemarie Clarke had raised a grievance against Cara Davani, because she felt she was being bullied and harassed by her. This led to a succession of acts of victimisation against her, recorded as findings of fact by the Tribunal, such as in para. 302 of the judgment:

‘'The tribunal is satisfied that the action of Ms Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did, was a direct consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal finds that the claimant was thereby victimised.'

There were other findings of fact by the Tribunal about total failures to follow HR policies, which provided evidence of Brent’s constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke. Para. 176 of the judgment says:

'The tribunal finds that, from the correspondence from Ms Gilbert on 21 February, addressing the claimant's grievance of 18 February, so as to conclude and dispense with the grievance, this was not in accordance with the first respondent's [Brent’s] procedure and a breach of contract.'

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

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani why she did not do the honourable thing, and resign, following the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke case. It may also wish to ask Ms Gilbert why she did not institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms Davani when she failed to resign. If, having heard anything those Officers wish to say, committee members agree that the Equalities and HR Action Plan cannot move forward with Cara Davani still at Brent Council, I hope they will not be afraid to say so.

The second point I would ask Scrutiny Committee to consider is at Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of Appendix 2].  This has been prepared by Cara Davani, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’. 

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposes. This reads: 

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give. 

As an example, in the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment it says:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made.’

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert to tell them who did make that decision, and why. The stain of the ‘racial discrimination’ verdict against Brent Council cannot be removed, nor the Action Plan succeed, until a full and honest answer is given.

“Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would recommend that the “criteria” should be: 

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:
‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’ 

Thank you.

Philip Grant
30 April 2015.

Note from Martin Francis: Readers may be interested in seeing the Scrutiny Committee in action discussing whether Philip Grant should be heard. Unfortunately most councillors did not switch on their microphones so the public could not hear what was being said. Muhammed Butt is sitting with Cara Davani in the right hand corner of the horse shoe.