Duffy puts forward his budget ideas for Brent

By Cllr Duffy

Over the last 10 years we have seen major cuts in government support. To a degree it is amazing how the council have successfully delivered services on many fronts particularly in Adult Social Care (indeed all social care) against the backdrop of an increasing demand. In my opinion we have also delivered improving services in our housing department, by taking the service in-house. Also the MetPatrol plus scheme seems worth while and should be affective once it fully operational , both of these without cutting workers wages.

However in my opinion the administration has made many mistakes, their first mistake was the failure to increase the Council Tax in 2014/15 to ensure we kept up with inflation and mitigated some of the government cuts. The first budget I was involved in 15/16 was frozen, while at the same time we were arguing the government had cut our grant to excessively. It is strange that the Leader of the council argued against raising the council tax with one member close to the leader saying they had to make "sandwiches for children at their school" and those pupils would suffer (they must have never heard of pupil premium ) if we put up the Council Tax by 25p a week.It very strange the same member  who is now a member of the cabinet is putting it up 84p a week tonight and says nothing now...I could never understand that argument as it lack any financial or intelligent basis and was a serious mistake. 

The mistake cost Brent Council over £4 million pound of income, over the last three years. If the Labour group had a financial and intelligent debate instead of the leadership steamrolling  the decision through, the council would be in a better financial position for the last 2 years and  would have more freedom on the level of council Tax tonight.

The administration somehow fail to understand because of government cuts it is important we produce policies that produce VFM,looked for additionally and even partnerships and above all  smart management to improved service outcomes. The Labour administration fail to understand their role is to instruct officers on the priorities of our residents and not for officers to instruct the administration on their priorities.The Cabinet continue to believe if their policies fail they can always make the resident pay via the council Tax to fund their failures.

For instances the attempted to privatise the Environment Enforcement Service employment by employing Kingdom Securities and cutting wages by 40% cost the council over £100k. So to make the money back the cabinet have decided to punish the residents for their own mistake.They have introduced a £35 charge for Household Bulky collections. The charged should be dropped because in the medium and long -term it will increase street dumping and residents should not be punished for failed policies.

The other problem remains that the cabinet have no co-ordinated approach to Environmental Enforcement, a schools environmental awareness programme or a street cleaning protocol and just rely on increasing costs to the residents. These issue are of low cost and should be funded by partnerships.

Green bins another service that the cabinet continue to increase charges to cover-up their lack of management. I have always believed the rule is  when you raise an Environmental Tax's they were based on the polluter pays. However this administration have change they rule into Environmental tax's means the recycler pays .I believe by cutting the cost to £25 a year for a bin and increasing participation to above 45% would make it cost neutral.  

It is now clear they over the last two years we having been burying many residents in builders rubble ( including Asbestos) while charging them for burial in earth The cost of that unethical behaviour will cost up to £900k in lost revenue and the removal of the contaminated waste. As usual the cabinet have come with a scheme to cover the costs by putting up burial charges for residents when that are at their most vulnerable. Again the cabinet making the residents pay for their own mistakes , they did not transport the contaminated waste to  Paddington Cemetery the council did. The increase in  burial  charges should be dropped .I believe the costs for the remedial works in Paddington Cemetery can still be managed within excising budgets over a three year period, with increase revenue for new burials once the contaminated waste has been removed. The council should not increase charges until they can guarantee the internal processes within the Cemetery service have improved.

The Conservative party argue that we should cut the reserves, in my view the reserves should stay and they are should be earmarked for the upgrading of fire prevention council housing blocks. Its approx.8 months since Grenfell fire disaster and all councillors should remember the council  took the decision that the cost would not fall on the Housing Revenue Account alone and would fall on the general rates , if the government refused to pay for the improvements .

Also remembering after the fallout from Grenfell senior politicians from all political parties said they have learn the lessons and communities like Grenfell  will not be ignored .Therefore it is important that the cabinet are not allowed to raid South Kilburn CIL which is due to the area following the regeneration works .This money was allocated to Kilburn because the residents have lived in a building site over the last few years  and is their money .The Kilburn CIL should not be used by the cabinet to cover up their inability to get additional [funding] and sponsorship and should be earmarked for Kilburn or other areas of deprivation. I hope the other 2 Kilburn councillors will argue for this and show empathy and solidarity with the residents of Kilburn and not allow much needed resources to be robbed from those in most need.

I will be voting for the 3.99% rise,  as I remain hopeful the Labour group will call the cabinet to account and stop them passing the costs of their failure onto the council taxpayer. 

Asbestos row: Duffy accuses Brent Council of sanctioning personal attacks on him

Cllr John Duffy has returned to the issue of asebstos contamination in Paddington old Cemetery with an email to councillors and others accusing the council of sanctioning personal attacks on him in the face of his attempts to unearth the facts over the issue.

Duffy wrote:

Brent Council has taken the extraordinary step of sanctioning personal attacks on me, These attacks  are a complete distortion of the facts and many are  plainly untrue. The Officers of Brent council have published what they call a fact sheet on there Web-site and handed out a similar document at a public meeting, which names me.. 

The officers are suggesting I am the cause of unhelpful rumours, which have left people feeling scared and uneasy instead of responding to the needs of my residents.

This is of course nonsense many of the facts stated are commonly agreed However the document seeks to mislead Brent residents by mixing -up facts to negate the real issues. All the issues I have revealed are all supported by evidence, unlike the officers facts which are based on the their views and have no evidence then other than "The Audit review report concluded that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries Service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery and that management consider the recommendations from consultants to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified" Basically saying they had no control systems at the time  and in layman's terms the contaminated waste that was sent to Paddington Cemetery was not screened. I have been in the waste management business for over 40 years , I can tell you  that the idea that officers cannot not tell the difference between soil ( which would be usual for a graveyard  ) and builders rubble  ( which ended up in Paddington Cemetery) is frankly staggering.

FACT 1

I believe the import of builders rubble including Asbestos  ,instead of  soil has been going on for a number of years ,in fact since 2010/11  and the audit report confirms  that fact.In 2010/ 11 we paid £21K for  work including the supplying and laying of top Soil. The officer who was in charge went of sick  and the  person who took charge queried the quality of the  work and soil. He instructed that the contractor who carried out the work was not to be used for future work". 

FACT 2 

If we move forward to  August 2015 , we sees avery similar scenario another assignment of soil/Clay  which was bound for the section 3D on the mound in Paddington Cemetery.However this time the soil  to back fill a hole following the removal of a tree roots .The  assignment was found to have asbestos within it .The Brent Officers believed  it to be asbestos  and double bagged it and sent it West London Waste Authority for disposal  , the consignment note confirms that fact said it was classified as Hazardous waste and weighted 60 KGs.  

FACT 3

The  scenario continued and further shipments of waste was sent to section 3D in Paddington Cemetery to backfill the hole .During a excavation of 3D  for a burial on the 9th May ( 20 months after delivery of the shipment took place ) and on the 18th May 2017 , asbestos was  discovered and a sample was  sent to Tersus Asbestos specialists for examination and they conclude on the 17th May  that  it was asbestos cement (Chrysotile) the remaining( hundreds of pieces )  weighting 30Kgs was sent to Brentwood Essex .The consignment note confirms that fact saying it was Asbestos cement ( Chrysotile ) .

FACT 4

Every since the area (3D ) was used  for burials the gravediggers have excavated large amounts of builders rubble .However on May 9th Asbestos was found.Brent council     instead of stoping all new work  still instructed the contractor to continue to  excavate for new burials . The test result came back from Tersus Asbestos Specialists confirming Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the  17th May 2017. A further find of Asbestos took place on the 18th May by the contractor. Brent officers still instructed  the contractor to continued to  carry out burials until May 30th some 21 days after the initial find of asbestos and 13th days after confirmation that the find of up to a hundred pieces was  indeed asbestos cement. The  officers assertion that the gravediggers wore disposable coveralls for these burial is untrue  neither were they informed of the Tersus results  or given any specialised training. Work continued on the mound throughout out the summer and operatives were not given  any protective clothing or breathing equipment. I am sure now that the Brent Council have reluctantly agreed to interview staff, they will confirm the facts.

FACT 5

I produced photographic evidence that operatives were working on the mound .I supplied pictures given to me by a resident which  were taken Monday June 26th *2017 The resident was concerned  that the work-force / public were  not protected from hazardous dust on Mound arising from works that were taking place. Brent council in their attempt to smear me and distortions the facts  they took  the absurd   positions of saying the "Photographs (are) not conclusive. Works and precise location not identified". They are pictures of a graveyard , with gravestones .Its a fact we have  been using stones as historical marker since Stonehenge . How Brent Officers can say gravestones do not a portray a precise location beggars belief.  As for the date of the work you would only need to interview the workforce who were bussed in to do the work and see if they were informed that Asbestos had been confirmed on the mound and were they issued with protective clothing and was  the area sealed off to protect the public. I believe the photographs confirm the fact  that work continue on the mound and residents band the workforce was put at unnecessary risk.

FACT 6

The two specialist reports by Eton Environment ( Sept 2017) and Delta -Simon (Jan 2018)  took place well after the ( around a hundred  pieces of )  asbestos had been removed following their discovery in  May 2017 .The Eton Environment survey  found 28% of their samples were positive for asbestos  including  several large chunks of Asbestos cement which had high content. Whereas both the surveys point to a low risk situation now, the surveys was taken following the removal of around a hundred pieces of the Asbestos found  on the 9th and 18th May 2017 .Furthermore the reports do not comment on the level of contamination/ risk that was present when the  Asbestos was discovered and the risk associated with it removal undertaken by Brent Council. However the reports confirm the fact "No asbestos sampling was undertaken in association with this (those) reports" the only asbestos sampling report was Tersus  and the consignment notes which  confirm the fact that  asbestos was cement (Chysotile) " and the  consignment notes confirm the amount of Hazardous waste found so far has been 90 KGS 

FACT  7

The issue about the council being open is not sustainable. The facts confirm they have been forced to publish the internal Audit report, it is clear they tried to ensure the press and the public were excluded from all meetings . They were forced  to interview staff who were present  at the discovery of the contaminated waste in Carpenders Park. They were forced  to interview the gravediggers who carried out the burials. They also never published documentation from Tersus Asbestos specialists which showed they were aware it was Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the  17th May 2017. They have been forced to publish  relevant  (not all as at least two consignment notes are missing) documentation. They did not inform the school that work was being carried out  to remove asbestos .The idea they did not contact the school/residents not to raise alarm is nonsense. The councils Audit Report did not mention the School or the affect on residents while the removal of asbestos was taking place. The council had no intention of informing the school or indeed the residents.  They reluctantly called a public meeting where  they ensured no one  but themselves were given platform , instead allowing a panel of four council officers (accompanied by a further eight in the audience)  to put the council view  ensuring only they could be heard.

At the meeting council officers tried to avoid the real issue the which is how consignments of clay changed to builders rubble (with Asbestos)  and did they recklessly put people at risk by continuing  to carry-out works after the Asbestos was found on May 9th and were they right to store the contaminated  waste by the Green Space.

The Audit  report the council relies on, do not address the issues. I  believe that the  evidence bears our the fact that the council instead of preparing soil  that had ben screened for the burial of residents , they knowingly transferred to Paddington Cemetery sub standard soil /rubble including Asbestos. I believe we need an independent Health and Safety investigation (why did the council chose an audit report?), which looks at the facts outlined above and believe the council should be forced to implement that impartial investigation , including the issue of compensation for resident who bought burial plots in 3D section of the mound.

* Not the  24th as originally state 

'Shunned' Duffy: Labour will be haunted by cemetery asbestos issue

In a comment on this blog LINK last night Cllr John Duffy, said:

I have been, blacklisted, deselected, resigned and shunned by the some Labour Party members. However the issue of the asbestos in Paddington cemetery and how they treated the workforce will not go away and will haunt the Labour Party.

Brent Labour Group punish John Duffy, outspoken Brent councillor - Labour whip removed

Cllr Duffy

In a dedicated meeting of Brent Labour Group held on Monday maverick councillor John Duffy  was deprived of the Labour whip for an indefinite period.

In what one informant described as an ugly meeting reminiscent of a kangaroo court, Duffy was accused of  bullying and bringing the Labour Group into disrepute.

Cllr Butt's allies ensured that a compromise proposal, for a shorter period, was defeated. Duffy's recent criticism of Brent's CEO, Carolyn Downs, appeared to have played a part in the move as well as his revelations concerning Brent's management of its waste services. LINK

Duffy, who was not selected by Labour for the May 2018 elections, has just only six months left as a councillor.

I do hope that this does not prevent Cllr Duffy continuing to speak 'Truth to Power' despite "Power' trying to silence him.

Cllr Duffy launches consultation on improving Brent Council's environmental services

Previously published on Wembley Matters 0 Springtime flytip Chalkhill

Cllr John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the fray over Brent Council's policy on the environment and particularly fly-tipping and littering enforcement.

He is starting a consultation with residents which he says will try and improve environmental services and hopefully stop or change the £35 bulky waste charge and start a schools initiative. All parties are welcome to comment.

He has publicised his initiative on his blog Kilburn Calling LINK and this is an edited version.

In an email to all Brent councillors he says:

Dear All,

I am asking for your input into improving the environmental services available in Brent. I wonder have you a moment  to comment on the issues below.

From my observations Brent Environmental services are often very good, but are very inconsistent and have lacked direction.

It is also clear that the Cabinet continues to waste precious resources and I believe they have no enforcement strategy or are aware of the tactics needed to ensure implementation of an enforcement strategy. The Brent cabinet believe it’s easier to pick the ratepayer’s pocket, than look for solutions. The cabinet have struggled to make environmental enforcement against fly-tipping a priority and relied on unnecessary price increases to cover -up their lack of direction. I find it astonishing that the cabinet continue to Laud over their Zero -tolerance(ZT) policy which waste £100k of precious resources boosting they have issued 6000 FPN ( 99% on fag butts). They do this while concealing  the fact  Fly -Tipping went up by a staggering 32% at the same time.

I am sure I can speak for many resident in Brent when saying if the local police started a ZT policy against burglaries in Brent and arrest 6000 burglars, and at the sometime burglaries when up by 32%. No one would think that was a success most people would call it a failure, however the Cabinet seem to think the opposite.

I believe we need to re-prioritise Brent’s enforcement policy from the sound bite Zero-Tolerance (ZT) into what used to be called Smart Enforcement  which means the policy will be judged by improvements in cleansing out comes (less fly-tipping) not by how many FPNs have been issue.

Enforcement needs co-ordinating of all resources available from the council, the contractor and residents. It is important we seek Value for money to protect and improve the Environment and the cabinet should not treat the residents as a Cash Cow.

The cabinet have continually raised environmental taxes, if you have a Green Bin you pay an extra £20 and an extra £35 for bulky waste collections (allowing for only one collection PA) is £55.That is the equivalent of a 4% rise in council tax this year alone. Some costs are reasonable but other are needless and wasted on paying private contractors to sit outside tube station fining people who drop dog -ends before they get on a train. Instead the cabinet should be investing in a intergrated Environmental Enforcement strategy.

One of the biggest mistake the cabinet made was having no consultation with residents or councillors

What I am suggesting is listed below.I am putting forward these suggestions for consultation with residents. Once  the consultation is complete I hope to gain enough support to call a special meeting of the council in November/December to discuss and implement some of the suggestion and hopefully reconsider the £35 cost for Bulky Waste collections.

ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI  FLY-TIPPING STRATEGY 

(1)      MAPPING    

Firstly we have to analyse the 17000 fly-tips we had last year and remove any duplication, we then have to map the hot spots in each ward (or Village) where the there is consistent fly-tipping dumping.

(2)      SIGNAGE / WARNING LETTERS / ENFORCEMENT NOTICES 

Our no Dumping Signs,Warning/Information letter and Enforcement Notices need overhauling and updated. All information needs to be A (Accurate) B (Brief) C (Clear) with a Direct Enforcement contact email and telephone number should be showing. All correspondence   should seek to be ABC.

(3)      ZONAL IMPROVEMENT PATROL (ZIP)

The government legislation allows us to keep all income we receive from fines, with that income we should fund at least two ZIP team this team will deal with consistent areas of dumping. These teams will be on top of existing officers  and should be self funding via the income from the FPNs. 

All zone one (High streets or roads with a transport hub) with a time -banding collections service should be visited at least twice a week  for inspection and where possible at least one of those should be the week-end where the foot-fall is higher 

(4)      OFFICERS TRAINING

All officers should be generically trained to deal with enforcement. The service over the last year has had the wrong priorities and has been side-tracked away from Fly-tipping have concentrated on Section 87/88 of the EPA (Littering FPN)

Officers should also be trained and use

Section 33 (Depositing waste)

Section 34 (Duty Of Care)

Section 59 (Private Land )

Section 46 (Domestic Bins)

Section 47 (Commercial Bins)

Section 90 (Litter Controls Areas)

or any legislation which has replaced them

This will give Officers the knowledge to deal with a wider range of problems of areas behind shops Neasden, Edgware Road, Hassop Rd and Waterloo passage as some examples.

(5)      Follow -up enforcement

Many of the problems are reoccurring problems. Brent’s officer’s do a good job on their initial visit and clear -up the fly-tips and many issue FPNs to perpetrators. However where they often fail is the follow-up monitoring, it is important we have re- inspections on persistent hot spots and they should be carried out once a week for the first 6 months and once a month for the following 6 months, before the job is signed off. Its is important we do not just temporarily remove the problem, its important we solve the problem.

(6)      Schools and Education 

One of the great failures of the Cabinet and the Labour group is the neglect of environmental education of our young people. Whether it be on issues from graffiti, litter, air - quality or recycling , they have been neglected . This is clearly a wasted opportunity. What I am proposing is a yearly environmental award. This award will paid for by a community chest of say approx £25k PA and will be funded by contractors who have environmental contracts with us. The Brent Environmental Award (BEA)  involve all schools all schools would be sent a Environmental bundle ( litter pickers, tabards, environmental books etc) the older students would become “Brent Environmental Champions” and offered (Environmental) work experience with our contractors or the council along with other rewards and opportunities .The Younger ones would become “Litter Detectives” and learn about their local environment  and how they can improve it. I attach  a poem that was sung by some London schools (including one from Brent) which I produced some time ago.

We need to work with our Head teachers to draw out how the (BEA) can be used in the classroom , schools are also major resource to spread information, to get out anti-littering and fly-tipping and general environmental information out to parents.

(7)      Bulky Waste 

The decision of the cabinet to introduce a cost for a bulky waste collection needs to be reviewed. I believe this decision is bad economics and bad for the environment. It would appear that the decision is purely to raise money and to cover up the inefficient service and the cabinet failure to monitor it. The fact is the residents had already paid for a free service in the street cleansing contract . At a time when fly-tipping is going up by 32% PA, residents need to understand the logic of how this policy will help control fly-tipping or increase income.

(8)      Recycling 

Again this is one of the areas the cabinet have neglected. It was once the holly grail of environment but has been ignored .The council moved from a once a fortnight collection to a once a week collection and the recycling tonnage has hardly increased and overall our tonnage is down. This again is about the cabinet making the environment a priority. Tonnage can be improved by a number of ways, but mostly i believe it by information and reward. We need to analyse the wards that are failing to recycled and target them.

(9)      Street Cleansing.

Street cleansing performance is in my opinion of a good standard, however we need to be more open and have independent surveys  carried out. At the moment we are self-monitoring. The council and the contractor carry out monitoring. Monitoring of our high streets is not done out of hours or at the weekend when the service often fails. I believe we need to employ an independent company like the Tidy Britain Group or another Council to monitor our services and provide us with independent surveys.

As I have said before many of Brent’s services are street cleansing are often good but can be improved. The issue above are some of the areas we can improve in. I would appreciate any input you can put into this If you can reply to CLLR.JOHN.DUFFY@BRENT.GOV.UK. and call the email IMPROVING SERVICES.

Now Duffy asks about missing councillor and 'jollies' from developers

This is part 2 of Cllr Duffy's correspondence with Cllr James Allie who will be chairing the Standards Committee tonight:

Dear James , 

Here is part two of my concerns please ensure the co-opted member are given a copy. Also if you are not the person or committee who deals with these issues please pass them on to the CEO with the questions as a FOI .

(A) Committee attendance 

James as a member of  the Labour group you are  probably aware that I have been left off committees for the past two years. You maybe also be aware that I won an election to be on scrutiny committee but was then removed and was not placed on any committee whatsoever this year. This is in-spite of the fact that attendance at committee meetings is very  low and the recommendation from the Penn report concerning the death of CIIr Oladapo (Tayo) said under 2.

What, if any, improvements the Council should implement"

(i)consideration should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub- committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule. This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule". 

I know you have witnessed the exchange of emails between the Labour Party chief whip Cllr Kabir and myself about this issue of me being removed from all committees. Therefore you can imagine my surprise when just before full council meeting on  last Monday! Cllr  Kabir told me that she had put me on the Licensing committee replacing another councillor, without asking my permission or my availability .I informed Cllr Kabir that I would not stand as I believe it was just cover-up to hide the fact a councillor had moved out of Brent sometime previous  and she was not willing to attend any more meetings than the bare minimum. I also told Cllr Kabir I was not good enough  for the leadership to nominate me for any committee meetings in May,  therefore what had changed by September.

I was at the time and subsequently concerned that the Labour leadership are not being transparent to residents  that  I am being brought into a deception without my knowledge. Also in the Penn report it said "consideration should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed. Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by another member or an officer". 
I am concerned that the apologies are being managed by the Chief whip in a blanket fashion and do not relate absences due to illness or any other reason , just the unwillingness of a councillor  to travel to Brent.I  wonder if under standards you would be willing to start an investigation into 

(1) When did the councillor leave Brent?

(2) Was the CEO and the Head of Legal informed ?

(3) If not why not ?

(4) Did the CEO and HOL give any advice?

(B) Hospitality 

As you know there has been a  successful planning application for Tottenham Hotspurs to play at Wembley , many people suggested Tottenham got a good deal  and many local Cllrs objected to the conditions. I have been informed by  a member of the public  both the Leader of the council Cllr Butt and lead member for Regeneration and planning Cllr Tatler have received hospitality from Tottenham since the planning permission was granted. Whereas I have some understanding that we need to keep relations open with the Wembley and their tenant Tottenham,  However I  do not understand why the lead member for planning should participate in hospitality as this could seemingly bring  the planning system into disrepute , therefore I ask you to ensure both these councillors  and any others who have participated in Hospitality declare  the reasons why they were offered hospitality and did they check it with the CEO,before excepting also if you could enquire 

(1) How many tickets were received and value.

(2) Who attended the matches with them.

(3) Reason  for the hospitality ( sometimes its OK to look at an issue of say crowd control ,traffic management, or a new street cleansing practise. However  receiving hospitality should not just be for a "Jolly Boys outing@ for them and their family that is not acceptable)

(4) Can you also enquire whether any other Councillors , Officers or relative have received hospitally from Tottenham or Wembley stadium.

In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as ' When you dance with a developer, its always to their tune". I hope you see that a declaration alone without reason is not enough, what we must consider is what the average man /women in the street would think, that is why I ask you to look at the issue.

Cllr Duffy asks Standards Committee to defer his item to allow independent input

Cllr John Duffy, subject of a report going to Standards Committee tonight LINK, has requested that members refer back the report to allow independent input into the matter.

This is his email to Cllr Allie, cahir of the committee.

Dear James , 

I was not informed of this meeting and only read about it on Wembley Matter on the 22^nd September. No doubt the CEO and the head of legal will say I was told six months ago this would be referred to the next meeting, however it is up to you to decide, whether it would be reasonable for CEO to inform me of the date of that meeting once it has been fixed.  

Anyway I am unable to attend tonight for personal reasons. Can you pass this email on to the co-oped members.

Let  me first point out there is no independent input into the report and I refused to accept that officers can come to a decision on selective emails and therefore I refuse to co-operate unless someone who was not on the officers “payroll” was involved.

Let me get things right and state why I believe the CEO was wrong  to leave Brent  to sit on operation Gold. I believe operation GOLD, was a complete waste of time,it's not my opinion it's the opinion of many  people.I strongly believe that quangos very seldom solve problems and I believe I have a right to voice that, as we live in a democracy.

In the aftermath of the disaster I believe the Ministers were wrong to set up a quangos of CEOs as many of the victims believed senior officers were responsible for not listening to them. What was needed were operation teams with hands on experience of logistics  and how to deal with problems that would arise from Re -Housing, Social Services , Bereavement counselling, Food distribution etc. CEO could play a role by nominating their best officers and put them into the field with resources.The ministers view that we need more Chiefs instead of Indians was proven wrong. 

The following day I went down to South Kilburn  and identified two blocks I believe were of concern, George and Swift House and raised it with the CEO during the next few days neither the CEO, the lead member for housing Cllr Harbi, the lead member for Regeneration Cllr Tatler appeared in South Kilburn, even though they were aware of SK  close proximity to Grenfell and the  fabric of the buildings was similar.

The officers on site did a sterling job on ensuring all survey were carried out.I also recognised that the Leader and Deputy Leader and the MP Tulip Siddiq (who chaired a very well received meeting) turned up to reassure residents.

However the CEO's decision not to support a emergency meeting was in my opinion wrong. It was clear the meeting may have been difficult as many resident needed to vent their  anger and frustration.

The CEO had a number of options of how to respond to the request from the 5 Councillors,Cllr Chan and Cllr Hector requested a meeting via all councillor email which included the Mayor.  

She could have supported the meeting and assist the members who were calling for a meeting to get passed, or to ignore those members of the council and use the bureaucratic tactics to ensure it did not take place. The CEO then compounded the issue saying a meeting would take place but the residents would be barred and the meeting would last no -longer than a ½ hour.I believe the later decision was  the worst decisionand an affront to the democratic process 

I believe the CEO was wrong so I am releasing some of the private emails LINK between the CEO and myself and other officers,which may explain what was going on at the time,means from the bottom-up.

I do have respect for the CEO and I believe she is very competent, however she is not infallible and on this occasion I believe she made a mistake on this occasion.

Overall I believe Brent officers did well following the Grenfell disaster. Therefore I think the CEO should concentrate on where we agree not where we disagree. 

I would ask committee members to refer the report back to allow independent input into the report.

I have other things I wish to raise with the standards  which I will send you later to today before the meeting .

The emails Cllr Duffy refers to can be found on his blog Kilburn Calling HERE

Brent CEO's Standards complaint against Cllr Duffy upheld but no apology made as yet

Brent Standards Committee will receive a report at its September 28th meeting on a complaint made by Brent Council's CEO, Carolyn Downs, and Cllr Liz Dixon against Cllr John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn ward)

The agenda item states:
 

Members’ Code of Conduct Complaint about Councillor John Duffy 


In June and July 2017, the Council’s Chief Executive and Councillor Liz Dixon made a Members’ Code of Conduct complaint about Councillor John Duffy. The background to the complaint is recorded in the attached Decision Notice as is Councillor Duffy’s response, a discussion of the issues arising and the reasons for the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision. 


The complaint about Councillor Duffy was upheld and by way of sanction it was recommended that: 
 

Councillor Duffy apologises to the Chief Executive;
- the decision notice be published on the Council’s website for 6 months; and - the decision be reported to this Committee.

Councillor Duffy did not exercise his right to request a review of the decision which is now final. 


To date, Councillor Duffy has not apologised to the Chief Executive. The decision notice has been published on the Council’s website and this is the reporting of the complaint and the decision to this Committee. 


 

MONITORING OFFICER DECISION NOTICE


Brent Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints about the conduct of Councillor John Duffy

The complaints

On 26 June 2017, the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, made a Members’ Code of Conduct complaint about Cllr John Duffy, Kilburn Ward. The complaint alleged that Cllr Duffy had breached the general principles of conduct, in particular, integrity and leadership and breached the following general obligations:

·      4(1): You must treat others with respect. 


·      4(2)(b): You must not bully any person. 


·      4(2)(e): You must not make frivolous, vexatious or repeated complaints against 
another member or an officer of the Council. 


·      5: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded 
as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute. 
The Code of Conduct amplifies the general principles of integrity and leadership in the following terms: 


·      Integrity: You should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour. 


·      Leadership: You should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence. 
 

The factual and evidential bases of the complaint is an email sent by Cllr Duffy on 26 June 2017 to the Chief Executive and all councillors criticising the Chief Executive. The broader context is as follows. 
On 26 June 2017 at 15:01, the Chief Executive sent an email to the Mayor giving her advice regarding a request for an extraordinary meeting of the Full Council in response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Chief Executive advised on the legal and constitutional rules, explained the procedure for calling an extraordinary/special meeting and set out the options and possible permutations. The Chief Executive also mentioned the member drop in session which had been arranged and suggested that the discussion of this very important topic could take place at a scheduled meeting of Full Council on 10 July 2017 - which had been in all members’ diaries for some time - and that normal rules could be suspended to enable a fuller and longer discussion. The email stated that “Clearly the decision to have the meeting before the 10/07/17 is your decision but I thought it transparent to share with all Councillors my advice to you.”. Accordingly, when sending her email to the Mayor, the Chief Executive copied in all other councillors. 
Shortly afterwards at 15:36, in his email reply (also copying in all councillors), the Mayor thanked the Chief Executive for her helpful advice and expressed his agreement. The Mayor, however, confirmed that: “If 5 councillors sign a requisition asking me to call an extraordinary meeting I will consider their request very carefully before making my decision.” 


Cllr Duffy initially replied by email at 16:21 (also copying in all councillors) and then re-sent his email at 16:29. In substance, the emails are virtually identical: the second email inserted a few more words which are immaterial to my decision. For ease of reference, I have re- produced below the actual content of Cllr Duffy’s second email with the additions underlined.

“The CEO behaviour is disgraceful and out of touch with reality.She says it’s not her decision but clearly she is trying to manipulated the Mayor and the situation. 

She is well aware there was more than enough members support for a special meeting but she has decided to ignore that. 

The Labour group should not stand by while she swans off to “gold”
(Personally I do not think they are doing a good job , the evacuation in Camden was a shambles)telling everybody else what to do , while she neglects Brent residents and thinks a bosses bulletin will suffice for our residents and local councillors Her first loyalty should be to Brent . 

Disgraceful behaviour and what I have come to expect from this CEO who is out of touch with Brent residents and seeks to enhance her own reputation instead allowing Brent residents information”.

The reference to “gold” in Cllr Duffy’s email is to the Chief Executive participating in the London-wide emergency support provided to Kensington and Chelsea Council following the Grenfell Tower fire. 

Given that these email exchanges lie at the heart of this complaint, they are appended to this decision in full. 

On 1 July Cllr Liz Dixon also made a complaint about Cllr Duffy email. Cllr Dixon complained that:

“In an apparent attempt to make representations on behalf of his residents Cllr John Duffy has made a number of widely distributed disparaging remarks about the personal and professional integrity of Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. In doing so, Cllr Duffy also publicly belittled the importance and effectiveness of London’s Gold Command structure and process. While Cllr Duffy has every right to make representations, and is free to speak critically in holding Brent Council to account, on this occasion his disreputable behaviour has fallen below the expected standard and as such Labour Group Executive is taking this action. This complaint is made on the basis of comments made in the attached emails which we believe to be entirely unwarranted, defamatory, malicious and vexatious.”

On 3 July 2017, the Chief Executive also complained about a further chain of emails between Cllr Duffy and officers (and copied to all councillors) which she felt demonstrates vexatiousness. The email exchanges concern an additional briefing session arranged for Members on fire safety in Brent. In his exchanges on 29 June 2017, Cllr Duffy, amongst other things, made further critical remarks about the Chief Executive’s advice to the Mayor. For example, “...it proves her strategy of kicking everything to the 11^th was flawed...”; “Why did she change her mind, was it because before the ink was dry on her email stopping a special meeting the facts were becoming clear that her decision was wrong and was unravelling in front of her” and “The CEO had decided not to have a special meeting and the Mayor and some other councillors support it and now we are in a mess and we look like we have something to hide”. Cllr Duffy copied all other councillors as well as other members of the Corporate Management Team into his email.

The response

In his initial response to the Monitoring Officer, Cllr Duffy reaffirmed his criticisms of “Gold”. For example, “I do not think Gold are doing a good job, you cannot make me say they are. They are useless and need to get their act together and start relating to the victims in K +C.”. 

Cllr Duffy also repeated his criticisms of the Chief Executive. For example, “The CEO made no attempt to contact me before she cancel the meeting....”, and “She mislead Councillors saying I had not enough Councillors knowing that I had”. 

Cllr Duffy also claimed that the Monitoring Officer was not impartial. 

In a subsequent response to the Monitoring Officer, Cllr Duffy said “I honestly do not care, what you do as I think the CEO behaviour is out of control and she believes because she wares a gold badge at meetings she is above dealing with local Councillors and residents 

It is clearly is no use complaining about her, as it will be you who will deal with complaint. You and the CEO have sought to misuse your powers to curtail debate.”.

The issues

Under section 27(1) of the Localism Act 2011, the Council has a duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the Council. Enforcing the general principles and obligations set out in the Code of Conduct is key to discharging this important statutory duty. 

In accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure, the Monitoring Officer carried out an initial assessment of the complaints and found that they fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct. Cllr Duffy’s emails clearly relate to Council business and ward matters and it is equally clear that he was acting in his capacity as a councillor. 

My determination of the complaints are set against the following legal and political background.

Councillors are entitled to criticise officers and their decisions and, depending on the circumstances, do so publicly and robustly. Criticism does not in itself amount to bullying or failing to treat someone with respect. Councillors are also entitled to challenge officers as to why they hold their views and officers can reasonably expect to be held accountable for their views, decisions and actions. However, if criticism is a personal attack or of an offensive nature, it is likely to cross the line of what is acceptable behaviour. Similarly, unwarranted comments which undermine public confidence in the administration of local government affairs and/or impair the mutual trust and confidence between members and officers are unlikely to be acceptable. 

Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating behaviour. Such behaviour may happen once or be part of a pattern of behaviour. Amongst other things, bullying behaviour attempts to undermine an individual. 

When a Code of Conduct complaint concerns something a member is alleged to have said or written (as in this case), a finding of breach will only be lawful if it fully respects the important right to freedom of expression enjoyed by members of local authorities in the interests of effective local democracy. 

My decision has accorded due respect to Cllr Duffy’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. 

This right has a long tradition in our common law and was embedded in domestic statute law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: 

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” 

This includes a right to express views which others may find objectionable or even offensive. Further, comments which constitute political expression attract an enhanced level of protection under Article 10. There are limits however. And the right itself is limited and not absolute which means it has to be balanced against the duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members. Further, the right has to be balanced against competing rights such as the Article 8 right to private life etc. which includes the protection of the reputation of others.

The decision

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, before deciding the outcome of this complaint, I consulted the Council’s Independent Person and have taken her views into account. 

Cllr Duffy’s reaction to the Chief Executive’s advice was entirely without justification. The Chief Executive had stated the legal and constitutional rules accurately. And the rules had been applied correctly: at the time of writing, a request for an extraordinary meeting of Full Council had been received from 4 members only (i.e. not 5); in any event, the request had not been signed by the members and was not accompanied by a notice of the motion to be debated at the meeting as required by the constitution. The advice was balanced, set out the options and stated in clear terms that the decision had to be made by the Mayor. The advice was also given transparently. 

Against that background, the allegation (which was stated twice) that the Chief Executive’s behaviour was “disgraceful” and that she was trying to manipulate the Mayor and the situation was unacceptable. As was the suggestion that “The Labour group should not stand by while she [the Chief Executive] swans off to “gold”” and the accusation that the Chief Executive “seeks to enhance her own reputation”. 

Cllr Duffy’s response was an unreasonable and excessive personal attack. These comments are unequivocally and deliberately offensive, disparaging and defamatory. Although I acknowledge that the Grenfell Tower fire is an emotive issue and feelings were running high at the time, the comments I have referred to amount to an unjustified attack of a personal nature and do not concern fire safety issues. 

In my view, those aspects of Cllr Duffy’s email crossed the line and failed to treat the Chief Executive with respect and brought his office and the Council into disrepute. This is especially so because Cllr Duffy copied all other councillors into his email. This amounts to breach of obligations 4(1) and 5 of the Code of Conduct as well as the obligation to maintain a high standard of conduct and, in particular, the principles of integrity and leadership (see para. 3). 

I am also satisfied that the email Cllr Duffy sent on 26 June 2017 in overall terms either by itself, or when read in conjunction with his email exchanges on 29 June 2017, is vexatious and unjustifiably offensive and bullying in nature. The persistent and targeted criticisms of the Chief Executive in emails which were sent to all other councillors and senior officers have no reasonable foundation, were intended to undermine the Chief Executive and have a harassing effect. 

This amounts to breach of obligations 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(e) of the Code of Conduct as well as the obligation to maintain a high standard of conduct and, in particular, the principles of integrity and leadership (see para. 3). 

For these reasons, I am satisfied that my findings of breach are a necessary and proportionate interference with Cllr Duffy’s right to freedom of expression. The Council has an important statutory duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and the serious, deliberate and unfounded accusations of wrongdoing which Cllr Duffy repeated and disseminated to others crossed the line and amount to an unreasonable and excessive personal attack. In addition, such an attack on the Chief Executive, without consequence, could expose other officers to similar treatment.

Further, the unfounded accusations of manipulating and misleading others and acting out of self-interest and other such personal attacks do not attract the higher level of protection that political expression does. Alternatively, even if they did, the findings of breach would still be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. 

For completeness, I note that Cllr Duffy was also disparaging about “gold” and made other criticisms of the Chief Executive being “out of touch” and neglecting Brent residents. As set out above, Cllr Duffy has a fundamental right to hold opinions on these matters and to express those opinions. As a matter of law, I do not have to agree with or approve of Cllr Duffy’s comments in order to respect his fundamental right to make such comments. 

Cllr Duffy has not disputed that he sent the emails the subject of the complaints under consideration. In any event, I am satisfied that there are no factual issues which need investigating before a decision can be made because the meaning of the emails which has caused offence and the context is clear. For these reasons, I have been able to conclude that there has been a clear breach of the Code of Conduct without an investigation.

The sanction

I recommend that Cllr Duffy apologises to the Chief Executive within 5 working days of the end of the period for requesting a review of my decision. 

This decision notice will also be published on the Council’s website for 6 months and will be formally reported to the Standards Committee. 

I am satisfied that these measures are proportionate to the clear and serious breaches of the Code of Conduct by Cllr Duffy. 

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, as far as the complainants are concerned my decision is final and there is no right of appeal or right of internal review against my decision. 

As far as Cllr Duffy is concerned, he may request in writing within 10 working days of receiving this decision notice that the Monitoring Officer review my decision that he breached the Code of Conduct and/or the sanction imposed. The reasons for requesting a review must be given and any new supporting documentation provided. 

LOOQMAN DESAI
 

DEPUTY MONITORING OFFICER, BRENT COUNCIL