Brent Council settles Employment Tribunal compensation out of court

Ten minutes before the Employment Tribunal remedy hearing was due to start at Watford Tribunal on Wednesday  Brent Council settled with Rosemarie Clarke's legal team out of court.

Although details are subject to a Confidentiality Agreement an award would normally cover legal costs and loss of earnings.

This marks almost the last chapter in the saga with the main protagonists including Cara Davani, Andy Potts, Fiona Ledden and Christine Gilbert no longer employed by Brent Council.

Muhammed Butt, a stout defender of Cara Davani, remains in post and of course Philip Grant's two questions remain unanswered.

Brent Council should take the opportunity tonight to open a new chapter in transparency and accountability

Regular readers of this blog will know that there have been numerous occasions when attempts to address Brent Council on controversial issues, ranging from the Veolia Public Realm Contract to the Cara Davani case, have been disallowed as well as motions from both Liberal Democrats (pre 2014 local elections) and Conservatives being ruled out of order.

Muhammed Butt's promise on taking over the leadership of the council of a new era of transparency and accountability, a commitment to listen to the views of residents and opening the council up to their scrutiny, has not been fulfilled.

Tonight's Full Council meeting, will be attended by the new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs. The old senior management  regime of Christine Gilbert, Cara Davani, Fiona Ledden and Andy Potts has gone.

A fresh start would be indicated if Philip Grant is allowed to make his presentation on the important of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council without interruption and there is proper debate on the Brent Conservative motion calling for an independent inquiry into the Rosemarie Clarke employment tribunal case.

Over the weekend I wrote the following to my ward councillors:

I am writing to urge you to support Philip Grant's request to make a deputation to Full Council on Monday September 7th.

I know Philip personally and he is a man committed to the highest standards in public life. He does not belong to any political party. His contributions to debate are always measured and well researched. The title of his deputation is one that Brent Council should welcome and support: “The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council”

The reasons given for refusing the Deputation by the Council's Chief Legal Officer are spurious (it is a part of a 'campaign' and is continuation of a 'complaint or grievance') and her decision to treat it as an FoI request high-handed if not a misuse of her powers under the Constitution.

Allowing a dignified deputation by a man of principle who is a respected local resident would provide an opportunity for the Council, after a particularly difficult period, to indicate its commitment to the highest standards of conduct by the Council as it moves forward under a new Chief Executive.

Martin Francis

The public can attend tonight's meeting to support Philip Grant, who has appealed against the refusal of his deputation, and to see if Brent Council can live up to its professed ideals. The meeting is in the Conference Hall at the Civic Centre at 7pm.

It can be watched on the live stream HERE and you can follow and comment via Twitter using #BrentLive

Brent Council to debate call for Independent Inquiry into Rosemarie Clarke case on Monday

The Brent Conservative Group motion on the Rosemarie Clarke case has been redrafted LINK and accepted by Fiona Alderman Brent's Chief Legal officer. It will now be circulated for debate at Monday's Full Council Meeting (7pm Brent Civic Centre).

The motion now reads:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing.We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference,but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference.........

1.What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against the claimant and was it fair and reasonable?

2. Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part,if any ,did this case figure in the departure of senior management from Brent?

4. What were the financial arrangements behind the second respondent's departure from Brent,including any indemnity given in respect of Tribunal costs awarded specifically against the second respondent?

5. What role did Cllr. Butt play throughout this case?

6. What were the total costs in this case ......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

7. What reputational damage, if any, has this case done to Brent Council?

This Council believes that this is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry.

BRENT SCANDAL: Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Yet another Deputation the Council won’t be allowed to hear! (or, “The Cover-up Continues”)

The cover-up at Brent Council is fast becoming a scandal and surely should at least be taken up by our local and London  press and TV. Here in a Guest Blog  Philip Grant shares the latest twist in the sordid tale:
 

In a guest blog last week LINK  I  let readers know that I had given notice to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer that I wished to present a Deputation to the Full Council meeting on 7 September. One element of that Deputation was to be asking, in open Council, for answers to the “two questions” I had put to Christine Gilbert on 9 July about the possible “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani, its Director of HR until June 2015. 

I was promised a reply to my notice on Tuesday, but it actually came today, at 08:47am. In the interests of transparency, I am setting out the full text of the reply from the Chief Legal Officer, and my response to it:-

Dear Mr Grant

I apologise that I was not able to respond yesterday.

I have carefully considered the constituent parts of your deputation request and I have also considered it as a whole and in the context of your previous correspondence on related matters.

The purpose of the deputation procedure is to allow members of the public to address all Members of the Council in relation to Council services or policies etc. The deputation procedure is not intended to be used as a continuation of an on-going complaint or grievance about decisions made by the Council. Further, any attempt to use the deputation procedure in such a way would not be appropriate.

That being the case, it appears to me that your deputation is, in reality, a complaint about how the Council has handled your request for greater transparency. As you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s response to date, I will formally deal with this via our procedures in relation to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You will receive a formal response within 20 working days and thereafter you have a route for taking the matter further via the Internal Review process and, ultimately, the Information Commissioner.  This is the appropriate statutory procedure for pursuing your objectives and not the Council’s deputation procedure.

Neither would it be appropriate to use the deputation procedure to complain about the conduct of individual members of staff or other matters relating to their employment, irrespective of their seniority. Consideration of such matters at a Full Council meeting would not achieve your desired objective and would only undermine the obligation of trust and confidence that staff can reasonably expect of the Council as an employer and would be contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998.

Best wishes

Fiona Alderman
Chief Legal Officer, Chief Operating Officer’s Department

I replied to Ms Alderman at 11:03 this morning, as follows:

Dear Ms Alderman,

Thank you for your email this morning. I am disappointed that you have used your discretionary power under Standing Order 39(b) to prevent me from making my Deputation to Full Council on Monday 7 September. I believe you have mis-used that power, in part, at least, because you have allowed previous correspondence on one aspect of my proposed Deputation to cloud your judgement. 
I would ask you to reconsider your decision. Please let me know by close of business tomorrow, Thursday 3 September, whether you will allow my Deputation to go ahead, so that I have ample time to prepare my final text for it.

When the provision for Deputations was introduced into Brent’s Constitution by Full Council, at its meeting on 4 June 2014, the report from your predecessor, Fiona Ledden, said:

‘3.6 (ii) Deputations - It is proposed that Deputations by members of the public be included in the agenda. A maximum period of 15 minutes will be provided in total, with 5 minutes maximum being provided for each speaker. Criteria are established requiring that such deputations relate to a significant matter concerning the borough

 The title of my proposed Deputation is “The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council”, and it can hardly be claimed that this is not ‘a significant matter concerning the borough’. You are wrong to suggest that this is, ‘in reality’, just an attempt to pursue a single ‘complaint’. I first spoke publicly about concerns which I, and other residents, have had about the conduct of Senior Council Officers in a “soapbox slot” at the Kingsbury & Kenton “Brent Connects” forum in February 2014.

 

The timing of my request to make this Deputation now is because of the arrival of a new Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, and the window this opens for improvements to be made. I accept that I am also taking the opportunity to use, as an example of the main point I wish to make, the failure by her predecessor to comply with her duty to show openness and accountability in response to my “two questions”. This gives the Council, and its new Chief Executive, the chance to re-commit to high standards of conduct, by answering those questions and by investigating, if necessary, whether there has been a misuse of Council funds.

You have referred several times to my continuing attempts to get answers over the possible “pay off” to Cara Davani as being a ‘complaint’. If I were making a complaint, I would have said so. Neither you nor Christine Gilbert has previously responded to my correspondence on this matter by saying that it would be treated as a complaint under the Council’s complaints procedures, so there is no reason why you should refer to it in that way now. 

Similarly, I see no reason why you should now treat my request for simple “yes” or “no” answers to two questions, which I first put to Brent’s interim Chief Executive on 9 July 2015, as a Freedom of Information Act request. If it was such a request, I would have said so. If you or Christine Gilbert saw it as such a request, then the 20 working days for a response to it has already passed! 

It is as if you have tried to find excuses not to accept my, perfectly valid, notice to make a Deputation to the Full Council meeting on 7 September, rather than accept, at face value, my request to bring a matter of real and serious concern publicly to the attention of the Council, so that it can be discussed and resolved. This matter has been “swept under the carpet” for too long, and it needs to be aired, so that it can be properly dealt with. Brent Council needs to deal with this stain from the past, so that it can move forward, and the arrival of a new Chief Executive is the ideal time to do that. 

I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

On past experience, it is unlikely that I will be allowed to present my Deputation to the Full Council meeting at 7pm next Monday evening, 7 September. However, if “Wembley Matters” readers still support my efforts to get the “two questions” about a possible “pay off” to Cara Davani, I would ask again, please, that they email their Ward Councillors, as soon as possible, this time with copies to: chief.executive@brent.gov.uk  and fiona.alderman@brent.gov.uk , to say so. Thank you.

Truth or Cover Up? Brondesbury Park Conservatives table motion calling for independent inquiry into Clarke-Davani case

Brondesbury Park  Conservative ward councillors have tabled the following motion for the full Brent Council Meeting to be held on September 7th 2015:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........

1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?

2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part ,if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?

4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?

5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent  indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?

6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?

7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?

8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

This Council believes this  is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry

Cara Davani - will Brent's Full Council meeting be allowed to hear the "two questions", and get the answers?

A guest blog by Philip Grant.

The saga of my “two questions” to Brent’s interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, over a probable “pay off” to Cara Davani, continues. See LINK for the back story. Despite my email reply on 13 August to the latest “response” from Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, on behalf of Ms Gilbert, I have heard nothing further from either of them. I had sent a short “reminder” to both officers on 20 August, including the following:

‘I am sure that you realise that there is no valid reason why Ms Gilbert should not answer the two questions I first put to her six weeks ago. Her continued reluctance to give those simple “yes” or “no” answers, and to explain the justification for any such “pay off” to Cara Davani if either or both of the answers is “no”, can only fuel speculation that she is trying to conceal some impropriety.

It would be unfair of Ms Gilbert to leave this matter unresolved, so that her successor, Carolyn Downs, has to “pick up the pieces” when she takes up the post of Brent’s Chief Executive on 7 September. It needs to be dealt with now.’

If they thought that my “two questions” would go away if they simply ignored them, they were mistaken (although Ms Gilbert will be leaving Brent shortly, so perhaps she doesn’t care that someone else will have to deal with the problem she has created). In the interests of transparency, here is the full text of an email which I sent to the Chief Legal Officer at around 7pm on Wednesday 26 August, headed 

“Notice under Standing Order 39 - Deputation for Full Council meeting on 7 September 2015”. 

Why did I send it so soon? A person wishing to make a Deputation to a Full Council meeting has to give written notice ‘not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting’. The date of the meeting is Monday 7 September (at 7pm), but the deadline for giving notices under Standing Order 39 is midday on Thursday 27 August. Under Brent’s rules, you can't count five days on the fingers of one hand!

Text of Full Council deputation email to Fiona Alderman on 26 August:

Dear Ms Alderman,

I am writing to give notice under Standing Order 39 that I wish to make a Deputation to Brent’s Full Council meeting on Monday 7 September 2015. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice, and let me know how many other such notices, if any, have been received within the time limit for that meeting.

The title of my Deputation is “The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council”, and a summary of its content is as follows:

·      A welcome to Brent’s new Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, and reminder of the importance of that position in setting an example of the highest standards of conduct.
·      Expressing a feeling that conduct at senior levels in the Civic Centre may have slipped below the high standards expected in recent years.
·      Cite one recent example where proper accountability and openness does not appear to have been shown by Ms Down’s predecessor, namely serious concerns raised from 12 June 2015 onwards over a possible “pay off” to the former Director of HR, which have not yet been resolved.
·      Repeat the two questions which were first put to the interim Chief Executive on 9 July, and are still unanswered, despite reminders, and requests from two Conservative group leaders and a number of individual Labour councillors.
·      Explain why it is important that these questions should be answered, and why any “no” answer needs to be backed up with an explanation of why any decision to make a “pay off” was considered to be justified.
·      Remind all councillors of their duty to satisfy themselves that any such “pay off” is not a misuse of Council funds.
·      Encourage councillors and officers to make answering the two questions the first step in a return to high standards of conduct under our new Chief Executive. 

I am aware that Standing Order 39 sets out a number of conditions which must be met before a request to make a Deputation to Full Council can be accepted.

Under 39(a), I can confirm that I am a ‘member of the public’ (a Brent resident and rate/Council Tax payer at the same address in Fryent Ward since 1983). Although I have requested to be allowed to present deputations to the Council and Scrutiny Committee during the past six months, I have not actually ‘made’ any such deputations, and my subject is not a repetition of a subject on which a deputation has been ‘made’.

Under 39(b):-
i.         My Deputation directly concerns a matter affecting the borough (resolving serious concerns raised by residents over a possible “pay off” to a former Brent employee) and relates to a Council function (the way in which Council officers, Full Council and its committees, deal with concerns raised over possible misuse of Council funds).

ii.         Although the second of my two questions includes the words ‘any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings’, my Deputation does not ‘relate to legal proceedings’. I will not mention any proceedings by name, or name the claimant in the particular Employment Tribunal case (where the judgement is already final) that has given rise to my interest in this matter. Nothing in my Deputation will have any effect on how the Tribunal decides its remedy hearing, only on whether Brent Council will respect and accept that decision after it is made.

iii.         My Deputation does not relate to a matter which is, or has been, the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. 

iv.         My Deputation is not, and will not be, ‘frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory’. I have made every effort to get serious concerns, which I first raised two and a half months ago, settled by direct requests for information and answers, backed up by reasoned argument. As senior officers of the Council have, so far, failed to resolve those concerns, I am seeking to use a right given to Brent’s citizens under its Constitution to bring the matter before Full Council, and use it as an example to support the new Chief Executive in promoting high standards of conduct at Brent Council.
I believe that my Deputation meets the conditions set out by (a) and (b) of Standing Order 39, but there is one further proviso at (b):

‘The Chief Legal Officer shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.’

That proviso gives you great power, but before you exercise that power I would ask you to consider the following points:-

a.    Deputations were introduced in changes to Brent’s Constitution approved by Full Council in June 2014. In commenting publicly on this provision at the time:
‘Cllr Butt said, “New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account.” ‘ [”Brent & Kilburn Times”, 12 June 2014]

b.    Two of the seven “purposes” of Brent’s Constitution, set out at Article 1.4 (in Part 2) are:
‘create a powerful and effective means of holding decision-makers to public account;’
and
‘ensure that those responsible for decision making are clearly identifiable to local people and that they explain the reasons for decisions.’

c.     Article 1.5 of the Constitution states:
‘Where this Constitution permits the Council to choose between different courses of action, the Council will always choose that option which it thinks is closest to the purposes stated above.’

d.    Standing Order 39 is part of Brent’s Constitution (in Part 3), so that in exercising your discretion between allowing my Deputation to be heard, or deciding that it ‘cannot proceed’, I believe you should choose the option which ‘is closest to the purposes stated above’. (See b. above)

e.    As Monitoring Officer, you have a constitutional role in ‘the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct’ at Brent Council (Article 13.5). One of the aims of my Deputation is to assist in promoting high standards of conduct, and to encourage others to do the same as part of a “fresh start” under Brent’s new Chief Executive.

f.      For all of these reasons, I believe it would be inappropriate if you were to use your discretion to decide to prevent my Deputation being presented to Full Council on 7 September.

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that I can make my Deputation to Brent’s Full Council meeting on Monday 7 September.

I am copying this email to Lorraine King, news editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, who will be interested to see how Cllr. Butt’s promise of allowing residents “to hold the Council to account” works in practice, and to Martin Francis, whose “Wembley Matters” online blog has championed transparency over the concerns I have raised, and whose readers have supported my efforts to get answers to my “two questions”.

Best wishes,
Philip Grant.

Cllr Butt challenged on 'untruths' and 'misrepresentation' in Davani case

Philip Grant has written to Cllr Muhammed Butt drawing his attention to the letter published in last week's Kilburn Times (see below) .

Philip said, 'You are welcome to reply to it, either to the newspaper or personally to me, if you feel that I have misrepresented anything. I look forward to hearing from you.'
 

Butt’s statement on the Rosemarie Clarke case, which Philip’s letter in the newspaper was responding to, was originally issued privately, just to Brent's councillors in their weekly "Members' Information Bulletin", claiming to set out the facts of the case, allegedly in the light of  'untruths' and 'misrepresentation of the judgement' by unnamed persons. Those people only had the chance of a "right of reply" after his statement was leaked to "Wembley Matters". 

Brent Council: Same two questions – why no answers?

Philip Grant wondered if Wembley Matters readers could stand another posting on 'The Two Questions' when he submitted this guest blog. One of Brent Council's strategies is to continue to stonewall until complainants give up. Philip's persistence is admirable and should be supported.

Some “Wembley Matters” readers have been following the saga of my two questions to Christine Gilbert about the probable “pay off” by Brent Council to its former Director of HR, Cara Davani, and the explanations given as to why she cannot answer them. This is the latest round. Anyone who wishes to see the earlier rounds can find them at LINK and LINK and LINK  .

If you are interested enough to read the exchange of emails below, I would welcome your comments. Are the reasons given by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer reasonable? Even if you think they are not, do you feel that I should give up now, and let those at the top of the Council get away with what appears to be a cover-up? Or do you support my efforts to get to the bottom of this matter? If the latter, then please show your support, not just by adding a comment below, but by emailing your local councillors to say that Brent must answer Philip Grant’s two questions, and explain why it believes that any “pay off” to Cara Davani is justified, and not a misuse of funds that the Council should be spending instead on services for local people. Thank you.

THIS IS A LINK TO COUNCILLOR TELEPHONE AND EMAIL DETAILS

Email from Fiona Alderman, sent at around 10pm on Wednesday 12 August 2015:-

Dear Mr Grant

I am replying to your recent correspondence to the Chief Executive and myself.

It is accepted that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry. 

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 will provide a copy of this response to Councillors Warren and Kansagra.

Regards 

Fiona Alderman

Chief Legal Officer

Email from Philip Grant, sent at around 5.30pm on Thursday 13 August 2015:-

Dear Ms Alderman,

Further to my acknowledgement of the email which you sent me yesterday evening, I am now writing to reply to the latest reasons you have given for Brent Council not answering the two questions which I put to Christine Gilbert on 9 July 2015.

My questions were raised in the context of serious concerns which many local people, including Council staff, expressed when rumours emerged two months ago that Cara Davani was to receive a “pay off” from Brent. The Council had announced that she was leaving at the end of June, to take a “career break”, so there appeared to be no reason why she should receive any further financial benefit.  She was already a controversial figure, who many thought should have resigned when her actions against Rosemarie Clarke in 2013 became public knowledge, through the publication in September 2014 of the Employment Tribunal judgement. It seemed inexplicable that Brent appeared to have taken no disciplinary action against her then for gross misconduct.

The possibility that Cara Davani might also be “rewarded” when she finally did leave the Council generated those serious concerns, and I sought answers from Christine Gilbert to find out whether the rumours were true, and if so, what was the justification for any such “pay off”. Those are still the matters which need to be resolved, and they will not be resolved by the Council continuing to be evasive over providing the answers. I realise that you are probably only carrying out the wishes of those above you in trying to defend that prevarication, and I will explain now why the reasons you have given do not stand up, by reference to the questions that I still believe Brent must answer.

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.

You have said:

‘It is accepted that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.’

It is already in the public domain that Cara Davani, former Director of HR and Administration, left the Council at the end of June 2015, and that there was an agreement with her, even though ‘the council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure’, which are presumably contained in that agreement. By simply answering “yes” or “no” to my question 1. above, the Council would not be breaching any ‘reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence’ that Ms Davani might have, especially given the context of this matter as outlined above (which I believe does provide ‘an overriding public interest justification’).

As I have said before, to Christine Gilbert, if the honest answer to question 1 is “yes” (i.e. that there was no financial payment other than her normal salary up to 30 June 2015), that is the end of that matter. However, if the answer is “no”, then Ms Gilbert does need to explain what justification there is for having made an additional payment (even if the amount of any such payment can only be given, in confidence, to those Council staff and councillors who need to know it). If the Council cannot show that there is a valid justification for any additional payment to Ms Davani, then such a payment could be a misuse of Council funds, and should be open to public challenge. That consideration must surely override the “privacy” of a person who may have received such a payment.

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.

I have already dealt with your ‘expectation of privacy and confidence’ point above, but you also say:

‘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 thought that I had already covered this point in my email to you and Christine Gilbert on 3 August, making clear that the fact that the remedies hearing has not yet been finalised does not prevent Ms Gilbert from answering my second question. However, I will spell it out again here.

If the Council has not agreed, and will not agree (as it should not, for the reasons below), to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “yes”, and that is the end of the matter.

If the Council has agreed to fund all or any part of any award which the Tribunal may make against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “no”. The question is not asking for any amounts, so it does not matter that those are ‘not yet determined’.

I accept that the Tribunal has not yet made any awards in this case, but given its findings in favour of Rosemarie Clarke in the judgement of September 2014, it is likely to make awards at the remedies hearing. It may decide to make its awards solely against the first respondent, the London Borough of Brent, the employer. However, as Cara Davani is a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal proceedings, it is open to the Tribunal to make an award against her personally. If it does that, it will be doing so on the basis of its findings of fact, after reading and hearing detailed evidence.

In these circumstances, I believe that it would be wrong, and a misuse of Council funds, if Brent were to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally. That is why it is important that my second question is answered, and answered now, so that if the honest answer is “no” Ms Gilbert can explain why she, or whoever on behalf of the Council agreed such an arrangement, considers that it is justified for Brent to pay any such award

I am sure that the Tribunal will only make an award against Ms Davani personally, if it does make such an award, if it believes that award reflects her own liability on the facts of the case, and not that of the Council. Surely it is right that councillors and the public should be able to challenge any possible misuse of Council funds. To conceal the facts, when they have been openly requested, in a way that does not require the Council to breach its secrecy agreement with Ms Davani over the details, just as surely cannot be right.

I am copying this email to Cllr, Kansagra and Cllr. Warren, and will forward a copy to the other councillors who were copied into my previous correspondence with Ms Gilbert on this matter. I will also make it publicly available, as I informed you this morning.

In conclusion, I hope that you will now provide the two “yes” or “no” answers to my two questions. If you do not feel you can do so in Ms Gilbert’s absence, please confirm that you will advise her to provide the answers on her return from annual leave, and let me know, please, when that is expected to be. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Brent Council and Cara Davani: ‘Both parties had something to hide, so they both agreed to hide it.’

Philip Grant added a comment to a previous blog yesterday which contains some new information about the likely “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani. So that all Wembley Matters readers are aware of this new development, I am posting his comment here as a separate guest blog:-

Despite a reminder to Christine Gilbert this afternoon (Friday Aigust 7th) that I was expecting her reply 'by the end of this week', I have not heard anything further from her, and so am still waiting for her answers to my two simple "yes" or "no" questions. See LINK if you don't know what these are.

Cllr. Warren copied to me an email he sent to Brent's Chief Legal Officer on Wednesday, referring to my email above of 3 August and supporting the arguments I had made. Calling for Christine Gilbert or Fiona Alderman to provide the answers to my questions, he said: 'It cannot be right to deny both Members and Brent Council tax payers such basic information.' Ms Alderman copied to me her acknowledgement, saying that she would reply to Cllr. Warren shortly, but if she has replied, I am not aware of what she has said.

I can now say for certain that there WAS an agreement between Brent Council and Cara Davani. Some WM readers have said that the continued mantra from Ms Gilbert, Ms Alderman and Cllr. Butt of: ‘The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure,’ meant that there must have been "arrangements". They were right. 

A reliable source has now told me that when she left Brent in June 'both Cara Davani and the Council signed an agreement. One clause of this restricted either party from disclosing the details of the agreement.' So much for openness and transparency! Both parties had something to hide, so they both agreed to hide it.

Despite this, it is NOT the details of the agreement that my two questions are asking for, so there is no valid reason why Christine Gilbert should refuse to answer them. It seems highly likely that the agreement involved some financial benefit to Ms Davani, so that the answer to at least one of the questions must be "no". In that case, Christine Gilbert also needs to tell Brent's councillors, its staff and its residents what the justification is for the Council giving that financial benefit to Cara Davani, so that councillors in particular can satisfy themselves that this is not a misuse of Council funds.