Granville & Carlton Centre users assured that they will be included in plans for the future of site

I was unable to make tonight's Cabinet meeting where the Granville and Carlton Centre plans  were on the agenda.  However an observer tells me that Cllrs Conneely, Duffy, Jones and Warren spoke for the occupants of the buildings. Lesley Benson, head of Granville Nursery Plus amd Momata from Granville Kitchen also spoke.

Several contributors said that it has been the worse decision making process that they had every seen.

Apparently the Cabinet was contrite and Cllr Butt and Cllr Mashari said that they wanted to reassure the Granville and Carlton users that they would be included as contributers in the future, rather than just consulted.

The Cabinet approved the report. LINK

Brent Council and the Cara Davani “pay-off” – questions that still need to be answered

I commented on Martin’s 11 July blog about “Labour abstentions on Tory Davani motion”  LINK , that I might need to write a guest blog for what I would like to say, as a “comment” did not allow enough space. This is that guest blog:-

I was not at the Council meeting on 11 July, but I have watched the debate on the “Webcast” page of the Council’s website. The first thing it clarifies is that Brent Council was misleading us when it stated in June 2015 that Cara Davani was leaving ‘to take a career break.’ From the statements made in the debate by Cllr. McLennan, and particularly by Cllr. Colwill, it now appears that Ms Davani was made redundant, and that, it is claimed, the £157k she received was Brent’s “normal” redundancy pay-off of one year’s salary plus a further three months in lieu of notice.

However, if this was a redundancy, it was not a “normal” one. It was not the result of a staff restructuring, where her post had been done away with, like the two senior management reorganisations she brought in during her time in charge of Brent’s HR (with large redundancy pay-offs to the Assistant Chief Executive and Legal Director, among others, at the end of 2014, and to a whole raft of senior officers in March 2013). So (1) what was the reason for Cara Davani being made redundant, who decided that she should be made redundant, and why then, in June 2015?
  
 Had she become too much of an embarrassment to Brent Council, or was it part of an “exit strategy” she had worked out herself with her close associate and then interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, before the newly appointed Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, took over?

Cllr. McLennan, in response to Cllr. Warren’s motion, argued that Brent had to make this pay-off on the basis of external legal advice, and that if it had not done so, Cara Davani could have claimed against the Council for constructive dismissal. I welcome the news that Cllr. Warren has apparently made an FoI request for this legal advice to be made public LINK . If that legal advice was only sought around June 2015, it might have been correct, but only because Brent had failed to take timely disciplinary action against Ms Davani, in September 2014, for her misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case.

I have written a great deal about that case, and this article would be far too long if I went into the details again now, but I will refer to some earlier blogs, and provide links to them for anyone who wishes to follow up the points I will make. On 21 September 2014 I wrote jointly to Christine Gilbert and Fiona Ledden (then Brent’s Legal Director), referring to the Tribunal’s judgement, and to comments made by “Wembley Matters” readers on blogs about it LINK, before saying:

‘… I believe that the most important matter, before you consider your own futures, is that you must insist on the immediate resignation of Cara Davani (if she has not already left Brent's employment permanently). Any thoughts of wasting further money (including my own Council Tax payments) on an appeal in this matter should be dropped, as the Tribunal has made the findings of fact which make this such a damning judgement of Brent's actions against this employee, and no legal arguments can undo those findings.’

On the same day I wrote a similar email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, with copy to my Fryent Ward councillors, saying: 

‘What should you do, on Monday morning if it has not already been done before? If Ms Davani has not already resigned or been suspended, you should ensure that the Chief Executive, or the person deputising for her if she is not available, speaks to Ms Davani and insists on her immediate resignation, in the light of the findings of the Tribunal about her actions. While this would treat her misconduct more leniently than she has treated that alleged of others, it would allow her to go immediately, but with payment from Brent for her period of notice, and at least show that the Council is taking the judgement seriously. If Ms Davani refuses to resign, formal misconduct proceedings (including her suspension) would be required, with care being taken that the correct procedures are properly carried out (unlike in Ms Clarke's case).’

As we now know, no disciplinary action was taken then, and I believe there would have been no grounds on which Ms Davani could have claimed “constructive dismissal” if it had been. So (2) why was no disciplinary action taken against Cara Davani in September 2014, when there was clear evidence and findings of fact in the Employment Tribunal judgement to show gross misconduct by her, and who decided that no such action should be taken?

In opposing the motion at Full Council, Cllr. McLennan used Cllr. Pavey’s HR Review and press statements made by the Council that it would not tolerate the sort of behaviour shown by the Rosemarie Clarke case to support her views. Between November 2014 and September 2015 I made a number of attempts to get issues arising from this Employment Tribunal case “on the agenda” at meetings of Scrutiny Committee and Full Council, so that councillors could discuss them openly.

One example was a deputation that I had asked to present to Scrutiny Committee in April 2015, when it was considering the report on Cllr Pavey’s Review, and the draft action plan arising from it. What I hoped to say, so that committee members could question the interim Chief Executive and HR Director (who were present to speak on the report) about it if they wished to, included the following:

·      that the Review was set up to ensure that lessons were learned from the Rosemarie Clarke case;

·      that Cllr. Pavey could not consider that case, as his terms of reference would not allow him to; and,

·      as a result, the Review ignored an important lesson which should have been learned:

‘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.’ 

After referring to guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director, that ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’, and evidence from the Tribunal’s judgement of misconduct by Ms Davani and a total failure by Christine Gilbert to follow Brent’s HR procedures when dismissing a grievance raised by Ms Clarke, my deputation asked:

‘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 would not allow me to present that deputation LINK . I think the presence of Cllr. Butt, sitting beside Cara Davani opposite the committee members, may have intimidated them into reaching that decision, but the official reason was advice from the Chief Legal Officer that I should not be allowed to refer to the Rosemarie Clarke case in speaking to the committee, as it ‘had not been fully concluded’.

Although that case was still not fully concluded, Cllr. Muhammed Butt was allowed to issue a statement about it at the end of July 2015. It claimed that he was giving the facts of the Rosemarie Clarke judgement, because of ‘untruths’ that had been written about it, but I responded to him LINK  pointing out that HE was the person trying to misrepresent the Tribunal’s findings. This was another example of him seeking to “protect” Cara Davani, and I invited him to respond to these charges, which he has always tried to ignore LINK . So I ask the Council Leader again (3) why was Cllr. Butt “protecting” Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

Although we now know, a year later, that Brent paid Cara Davani £157,610, we still do not know the answer to a second point which I tried to raise when rumours of a pay-off emerged in June 2015 LINK . Cara Davani was a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal case, and would have been personally liable to pay some of the compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal was due to award to Rosemarie Clarke. So my final question, to Brent Council, is (4) whether the out-of-court settlement made to settle Rosemarie Clarke's Employment Tribunal claim in September 2015 included any contribution from Ms Davani, or whether Brent Council paid the full amount including any compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal could have awarded against Ms Davani personally?

I will send a copy of this guest blog to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will also copy it to the three councillors who spoke in the debate on the motion at Full Council, the Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan, and the Leaders of the two Conservative groups, John Warren and Reg Colwill. I hope that they will, together, realise that the questions I have highlighted above do still need to be answered, openly and honestly, so that Brent can finally put the Rosemarie Clarke case behind it, and that they, or one of Cllr. Butt or Ms Downs on the Council’s behalf, will issue a public statement answering those questions.

Philip Grant.

Standards at Brent Council – Will Standards Committee set a good example?

This guest blog by Philip Grant continues his attempt to ensure Brent Council displays high standards of conduct in public life.
 

In a blog article of 2 January 2016 LINK I referred to the Annual Report which Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer was presenting to its Standards Committee the following week, and some matters of concern which it raised. I was not able to attend the meeting, so was interested to read what the minutes of the committee meeting on 7 January would have to say about that Report. This is the text of the draft minute for that item, which appeared on the Council’s website last Friday:

‘5. Annual Report to the Standards Committee 2014 - 2015

The committee considered the circulated report of the Monitoring Officer which updated members on conduct issues and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer for the period December 2014 to December 2015.

The committee was informed that the process of recruiting Independent Persons would begin later in January. Councillor Warren enquired about the Council’s existing arrangements. He proposed that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile in order to give the role greater credibility by bringing forward their role in the process of considering complaints. Concern was expressed that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer and that such an arrangement was not followed in other boroughs.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report 2014/15 be noted;

(ii)          that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.’

While I am glad to see that Standards Committee did more than simply ‘note’ the Annual Report, which is what the Monitoring Officer had recommended they should do, the brevity of this minute raises more questions than it gives answers to.

1.     What was Cllr. Warren’s enquiry ‘about the Council’s existing arrangements’ (for Independent Persons?), and what was he told in reply to his enquiry?

2.     Which other committee members raised enquiries on, or made comments about, the Annual Report; what points did they raise and what answers were they given?

3.     Was Cllr.Warren’s proposal ‘that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile’ put as a formal motion, and what discussion (and vote?) took place on this proposal?

4.     Who was it that expressed concern ‘that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer’, and what reasons were put forward in support of that concern?

5.     Who put forward the resolution (not referred to in the Annual Report itself) ‘that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of Standards Committee’, and what views were expressed “for” or “against” this proposal?

The minutes of the meeting at which the previous Annual Report was presented (9 December 2014) give details of a number of questions raised and comments made by committee members; these are followed by a 17-line paragraph beginning: ‘In reply to the issues raised, Kathy Robinson advised that …’ which gives answers to the points raised. [For information: Kathy Robinson was the Council solicitor deputising for the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden.] Why was that precedent, and the good practice it showed of properly recording in the minutes what happened, not followed for the meeting on 7 January 2016? And how can the draft minute for item 5, quoted above, ‘be approved as an accurate record of the meeting’?

The purpose of Standards Committee, as set out on the Council’s website, is:

‘To promote high standards of conduct by councillors, to receive allegations that councillors may have failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct.’

At the heart of those high standards of conduct are the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (see footnote below for an explanation of what these principles should mean in practice), which all members must comply with whenever they are conducting any business of the Council.

I hope that the members of Standards Committee (to whom I am sending a copy of this blog article) will show openness and accountability, by amending the draft minutes for item 5, so that they record properly the actions of those who took part in the discussions on the Annual Report and the reasons given for those actions, so that the public can hold them to account. The amended minutes for the meeting on 7 January should then be posted on the Council’s website, in place of the draft minutes, as soon as possible after 21 March.

By amending the draft minutes, Standards Committee would demonstrate leadership, in promoting high standards of conduct. It would also avoid the integrity and honesty of committee members being called into question, which could be the case if it appeared that the minutes were deliberately being kept vague, as part of ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’. Failure to amend the draft minutes would provide further evidence for the criticisms I made about Brent Council in my open letter to its Chief Executive on 27 November 2015 LINK

So, please come on, Standards Committee, and set a good example over standards of conduct to other members, to encourage public confidence in Brent Council.

Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:

‘You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general conduct principles:

The General Principles

Selflessness – you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

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.

Objectivity – you should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – you should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.

Openness – you should be as open as possible about your actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.

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.

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.