Objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – lawfulness of Cara Davani “pay-off” still to be resolved

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It appears that I was being optimistic when I gave an update on this subject in January LINK  referring to “progress” in dealing with the objections by five local electors to Brent Council’s accounts for 2015/16. I am writing this article to keep interested “Wembley Matters” readers informed about the current situation.

Four months ago, the objectors were waiting to receive some Brent Council documents from the Auditor, so that we could make further comments in support of our objections, and in reply to the Council’s response of 14 December 2016 to our objections. We are still waiting!

Progress on investigating the objections has not been helped by a change in the person at Messrs KPMG who is acting as Auditor. We were informed of the change at the same time this was disclosed in a report by KPMG to Brent’s Audit Committee on 20 March:

‘We would like to inform the Audit Committee that Andrew Sayers, a partner based in our London office, is replacing Philip Johnstone as the engagement lead on the audit. Andrew has already met with Carolyn Downs, Althea Loderick and Conrad Hall to help ensure a smooth handover from Philip. Andrew has a wide experience of audit and is currently the engagement lead at five other London boroughs as well as KPMG’s national Lead Partner for Public Sector audit.’

Mr Sayers did confirm, when first writing to the objectors, that he would share with us all the documents which he considered to be material to his decision on our objections, although he made clear that these might not include those ‘subject to professional legal privilege’. I made the following comments in my reply:

‘That legal advice, the circumstances around and timing of when it was given, and who it was given to, are all key factors in determining whether the payment to Ms Davani was lawful, as the Council claim, or unlawful. Why are Brent's senior officers afraid to allow the objectors to see the evidence of that legal advice, in confidence and purely for the purposes of your investigation, as auditor, into our objections? If they are confident that this "legal advice" document will stand up to scrutiny, they should consent to you sharing it with us; I am copying this email to Carolyn Downs and Conrad Hall, in the hope that they will now give that consent.’

I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive on 23 March, asking if she would, on behalf of Brent Council, ‘now consent to the auditor sharing with myself and the other objectors (subject to safeguards over confidentiality, and solely for use in respect of his investigation into our objections) the legal advice on which the Council's justification for the £157,610 payment we are objecting to is based.’ 

I hoped that the answer would be “yes”, but if it was “no”, I asked for some further information about the meeting at which the “legal advice” had been given, and the notes of that meeting (which appear to be the only documentary record of what that advice was). I hoped that this information would be provided ‘as a matter of course, in assisting with a proper resolution of the auditor's enquiries’, but asked Ms Downs to treat it as an FoI request if that was not the case.

The reply I received (not from Ms Downs, but from a Senior Officer on behalf of the Council) was very abrasive, but did provide the information I had requested. The “legal advice” had been given in May 2015 by Counsel to Christine Gilbert, then interim Chief Executive, who was accompanied by one other Senior Officer (but, surprisingly, not the Chief Legal Officer or any member of her legal team) who prepared the notes. The reply also referred to a decision notice, issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 22 March 2017, using this to justify why the legal advice should not be disclosed to the objectors.

That decision by the ICO was to reject a complaint by Cllr. John Warren against Brent Council’s refusal to disclose the “legal advice” used to justify the payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani, under an FoI request which he made in July 2016. Cllr. Warren had claimed that, although this was covered by “legal privilege”, it should be disclosed ‘in the public interest’. However, the ICO did refer to the Auditor’s investigation into the objections against the £157k payment, and made clear that this was a separate statutory process, so that Brent is wrong to claim that the FoI decision also precludes disclosure (in confidence) by Mr Sayers to the objectors.

The ICO report included a summary of the types of information which Brent has, and which would have been disclosed if Cllr. Warren’s FoI request or complaint had been upheld, saying:

‘The council stated that the withheld information comprises of email correspondence between council officers and the council's barrister relating to the termination of a, now, former employee's contract of employment and associated file notes.’

I have pointed out to the Council, and the Auditor, that this includes more documents than the objectors were led to believe (in November and December 2016) existed, and that all of these documents should be made available to the Auditor, if they had not already been provided to him. (Hopefully, they may still be shared with the objectors!).

I understand that the Auditor also asked Brent, in mid-March, to provide some further information and documentation (even though KPMG had asked them last November to provide all of the documents relevant to our objections). I do not know whether that is part of the reason for the continuing delay. 

When nothing further had been heard from the Auditor by early May, I wrote to ask when the objectors could expect to have the documents shared with us. Mr Sayers has replied that he anticipates sharing the documents material to his decision with us by the end of June, but has not indicated why it should take so long. 

The end of June 2017 will mark two years since Brent’s disgraced Director of HR walked away with £157,610 of Council Tax-payers’ money (as well as having her share of the Employment Tribunal settlement and legal costs in the Rosemarie Clarke case paid by Brent on her behalf). The objectors are having to be patient, but we will see this through. The sad thing is that key figures at Brent Council still seem determined to cover-up the details of what went wrong (and who was responsible for it), even though they finally admitted last year that ‘this had been a very unhappy episode’.

Philip Grant

 

Brent Council Tax to rise 3.99% in EACH of the next 3 years and borrowing to increase

In a report LINK going before Cabinet on February 13th Brent's Chief Finance Officer is recommending a Council Tax of 3.99% over eachof the next 3 financial years:

In October 2016, Cabinet agreed to consult on a 3.99% increase in Council Tax (2% Adult Social Care precept plus 1.99% for general purpose). Some additional savings of £4.4m were also consulted upon. Following that, in December 2016, as part of the provisional local government finance settlement, central government recognised the immediate pressures in the care market. It has therefore allowed local authorities to bring forward up to 2% of the precept for 2019/20, by increasing 2017/18 and 2018/19 council tax by an additional 1%, in return for a corresponding reduction in the precept for 2019/20. Brent could therefore increase Council Tax by up to 4.99% in each of 2017/18 and 2018/19, but if it exercised this flexibility then the maximum allowable increase in 2019/20 would be 1.99%.

 After due consideration the recommendation of this report is that the budget should be constructed on the basis of a council tax increase of 3.99% in each of the next three years. This is what was consulted upon and so is clearer for residents. The additional flexibility announced in December 2016 is also of relatively minor financial benefit to the council, and has negligible long term impact from 2019/20 onwards. By increasing the council tax in this way the impact of stark and ongoing reductions to local government funding since 2010 will be partly mitigated.

The report has been issued before the budget consultation with the public has been completed and a report on the consultation will be tabled before the Cabinet meets.  Clearly this leaves little room for any change as a result of the consultation. 

In fact consultation responses have been low with 57 on line (with no clear pattern of responses) at the time the report was written and these attendances at Brent Connects meetings:

The report goes on:

Although demography, in this context, is typically discussed as a cost pressure it also results in additional income. As a consequence of this, and of the planning and regeneration policies adopted by the council, the council tax base (i.e. the number of properties on which council tax is paid) is growing significantly year on year. This increases the council tax payable to the council, and helps the council finance the various pressures caused by population growth.The council is required to balance its budget in this year as in all years. 

In order to balance its budget the council has developed an approach that will help it meet the goals of the Borough Plan and Brent 2020 Vision, comprising:

Increases in council tax to minimise the requirement to reduce services; 

Innovative capital investment to reduce costs in key services, such as temporary accommodation;

Planning for growth in services facing major demographic pressure for example adult social care;

and Investing in key services for the Brent community, e.g. community safety.

The  report states that if the 3% Adult Social Care Council Tax increase is not approved Adult Social Care in 2017-18 will have to be cut by £2.1m.  This is in addition to further cuts in the overall council budget required of £2.3m in 2017-18 and £2.1m in 2018-19.

The Council hopes to achieve  £5.6m through a civic enterprise project to increase income from Council assets (you have probably see the posters encouraging people to get married at the Civic Centre) and £8m from improving commissioning and procurement services. The Council is hoping to sell its procurement services to schools.

It is clear that increasing the number of properties in the borough is seen as one way of increasing Council Tax income, even if they are not affordable for ordinary Brent residents on an average income. Population growth increases income for charged services such as parking.

The Council has a big capital investment programme and it is planned to increase borrowing to finance the projects. Expenditure was £111.7m less than expected this year due to a variety of delivery delays and the balance will be carried forward. The Council is planning to increase the amount it raises and increase the authorised limit:

It is important to stress that the authorised limit – the maximum amount that the council may borrow – has for a number of years been several hundred millions pounds above the level of actual borrowing – last year it was set at £400m above the level of actual borrowing. It is proposed to increase that by £100m to £500m, in light of the Council’s investment strategy, while recognising that the Council has been prudent with its estimate of the additional resources that may finance capital spend. Potentially, the additional growth would cost up to an additional £3m to service annually, should the borrowing become necessary, and if this was not offset by additional income or savings. The calculation noted above merely follows from the strength of the council’s balance sheet, as it is largely prescribed by statute and regulation. 


(Bracketed red offsets borrowing requirement)

One area of interest is the school budget where the report notes that:

As at 31 March 2016, Brent’s maintained schools held £24.8m in balances, a relatively high figure, prudently held in view of upcoming school funding reforms. [Cllr Warren attacked the level of school balances at the last Full Council Meeting]

Overall DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant)  funding has increased for 2017/18 due to growing pupil numbers, however on a per pupil level it remains a cash flat settlement, with the main schools block funded on 41,879 pupils at £5,522 per pupil totalling £231.3m. The other blocks support early years provision, funded at £23.4m, and high needs provision which includes all special schools, funded at £52.7m. Total DSG funding for 2017/18 is £307.4m.  

A number of schools are expanding and as a result overall pupil numbers have increased by over 500 in Brent. The two secondary schools experiencing rapid growth of 58 and 116 pupils have gained £238K and £675K, whilst 26 primary schools experienced growth in pupil numbers with an average gain of £125K. Reductions in funding are also in line with decreasing pupil numbers, for example two secondary schools have significant drops of 25 and 54, which results in funding reductions of £260K and £441K respectively. In the primary phase, 30 schools had a fall in pupil numbers resulting in an average reduction of £44k.

After the expansions of recent years a reduction in pupil numbers in a number of schools is significant, particular when the potential impact of Brexit on immigration numbers is taken into account.  The major factor affecting school budgets is of course the reductions involved when the government introduces a new National Funding Formula.

Conrad Hall, Chief Finance Officer, commenting on the overall Brent budget states:

In considering the budget report, the following key considerations should be highlighted in particular.:

The extent to which the overspends in 2016/17 are structural, that is, that they will or may recur in 2017/18, is a particular risk. Any element of these overspends that may be structural will, if not addressed during 2017/18, require further savings to be agreed next year to offset this. Whilst plans are in place to address this the scale of risk is significant.

Delivering the saving programme agreed in February 2016 will present substantial management challenges, particularly around procurement and civic enterprise savings. Again, considerable management attention has been and is being devoted to ensure that these can be delivered, but it is important to stress again the inherent risks in delivering such a large and complex programme. 
 

That said, the budget now proposed is realistic and affordable, albeit challenging. The increases in council tax set out, if agreed in this and subsequent years, will generate significant additional revenue over time, minimising the number of difficult new decisions about funding for specific services to be proposed. If agreed, this budget would provide for affordable services in 2017/18 and 2018/19, but a further gap of nearly £13m remains in 2019/20. Building on the outcome based reviews and other initiatives to start to close this gap quickly will be an important future consideration.

1. 
   

Chief Finance Officer's Briefing Note on RSG Four Year Funding Settlement

Following postings on this blog and thr Brent Conservative Group's attempt to get the issue debated, Conrad Hall, Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer has issued this briefing note:

Four year funding settlement

1.     As part of last year's local government finance settlement DCLG allowed local authorities to fix their revenue support grant (RSG) settlement until 2019/20 and set a deadline of 14 October by when local authorities had to decide whether or not to accept the offer.  After this date any councils which have not responded would be considered to have rejected the offer.

2.     To accept the offer councils merely need to write to DCLG confirming their decision and submit an efficiency plan.  There is little or no guidance on the efficiency plan, except that it should be brief, no more than four pages.  Most councils that have accepted the offer to date merely seem to have submitted their existing MTFS or a version of it, which has been acceptable.

3.     The option to fix RSG through to 2019/20 has therefore been known about for almost a year.  It has been referenced in update reports on the budget and financial position during this period.  The budget report to council on 22 February 2016, for example, set out what was known at that time and commented that "officers have assumed that funding from 2017/18 to 2019/20 will be as set out in the draft four year settlement".

4.     It is therefore clear that the financial strategy already agreed was based on an assumption that the option to fix RSG would be accepted.  Of course, Members could decide otherwise.

5.     However, the arguments for fixing the settlement are as strong now as they were seven months ago when the current budget was set.  Certainty in financial planning is always advantageous and it is undoubtedly the case that the local government sector has persistently argued for longer-term funding settlements than the single year normally allocated by DCLG.  Arguably this makes it rather perverse then to reject an offer to provide that very certainty.

6.     Given this, the argument to reject the settlement only makes logical sense if one believes that more resources might be allocated in later years than currently planned, and that councils that had fixed their settlements would therefore lose out.  For this to stack up one must believe that government's net revenue spending will increase over the next three years and that at least some of that additional expenditure would be allocated to local government, rather than say to the NHS or to fund tax cuts.

7.     Neither of these appears likely.  Furthermore, one would also have to believe that additional resources allocated to local government would flow through to London for Brent to benefit by rejecting the fix.  As other changes to aspects of the overall funding system are tending to move resources away from London this would be an optimistic assumption.

8.     Of course, accepting the fix guarantees that RSG will continue to fall sharply until 2019/20.  However, the decision is about whether to guarantee future funding levels and accepting the fix does not imply agreement with the actual amount allocated.  It is merely a pragmatic way of managing a very challenging financial settlement by reducing future volatility and risk.

9.     Legally, Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament, and so DCLG retains the right to vary future settlements even for those councils that accept the fix.  However, officials have made it clear that they would be very reluctant to do so and it is reasonable to assume that the fix would be honoured in any but the most extreme economic circumstances.

10.  Within London officers know of no councils rejecting the opportunity to fix RSG.  Decision making has usually been managed at Cabinet.  A few councils have formally taken the decision at a council meeting or as a delegated decision.  Where the matter has been decided at Council officers understand that there has apparently been no significant debate, on the item.

Conrad Hall

Chief Finance Officer

Brent Council budget 'coup' an affront to democracy?

In a posting prior to Monday's Cabinet meeting LINK I drew attaention to the possible decision by the Cabinet to freeze the Council's Revenue Support Grant (RSG) until 2019/20 which would mean setting out an 'efficiency' plan for Council expenditure over the next four years to be submitted to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Due to the timing of Cabinet and Council and government deadlines the Officers' report recommended that these decisions, as well as one on Council borrowing, would not be made by Cabinet or Full Council but by one councillor and one officer in each case.

I wrote:

It is not only the decision in principle that has to be made by Butt and Downs but an 'efficiency plan' submitted that will dictate the level of savings (cuts, 'efficiencies' and income generation) over the next four years.

These are major decisions and I do not understand why the Cabinet cannot convene a special meeting before the deadline to consider Downs' proposal and efficiency plan. The wider Labour Group as well as the opposition seem to have been left out of the process completely but their hands will be tied for the next four years by these decisions.

Put simply the main parameters of the Council's budget decisions will not be made by the Cabinet, Labour Group or Full Council - and certainly not discussed by Labour Party members.  Within that of course there is also the setting of the level of Council Tax.

When these matters come up for debate over the next four years any decisions will have to conform to the efficiency plan.

Given the clear difficulty the Council is already having in delivering 'efficient' services as a result of funding cuts the 'efficiency' plan needs intense scrutiny.

Instead it will be compiled by  Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO and Muhammed Butt, Leader o the Coucnil,  and submitted by them before the government deadline. Additionally the Cabinet agreed to delegate the appointment of specialist fianncial advisers to Conrad Hall, the Brent Chief Finance Officer and Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader.

The Cabinet Decision sheet records:

-->

RESOLVED: 2019/20 and option to fix RSG settlements

Cabinet noted the overall financial position and the risks inherent in it.

Cabinet noted the overall arguments for and against accepting a fixed settlement of its RSG until 2019/20, and that on balance the advice is in favour of accepting it.

Cabinet delegated to the Chief Executive and Leader authority to decide whether or not to accept the fixed RSG settlement.

Cabinet delegated to the Chief Executive and Leader authority to submit an efficiency plan to DCLG as part of any decision to accept a fixed RSG settlement.

Cabinet noted the position in particular in respect of business rates devolution and how this might progress, and that the chief finance officer will continue to respond to technical consultations as necessary.

Cabinet noted the progress in developing a financing programme for the investment strategy. 


Cabinet agreed to delegate procurement and appointment of specialist financial advisers to assist in the financing of the investment strategy to the Chief Finance Officer, in consultation with the Deputy Leader

In the light of these issues Cllr John Warren (Leader of Brent Conservative Group) has submitted a request calling for an Extraordinary Full Council meeting to discuss the Efficiency Plan before its submission.

Although his motivation may be to achieve further 'efficiencies' (cuts) and I would strongly disagree with that, the need for democratic decision making and accountability is essential and I think should be shared by Labour backbenchers.

This is Warren's  request:

Mr.Mayor,

I ask that the following item be included as " Any Other Urgent Business " at the meeting on Monday September 19th 2016


Full Council is asked to consider the Cabinet recommendations, noted below made at its meeting on 13 September 2016 in the report " Financial Position 2017/18- 2019/20 and option to fix RSG settlement " by holding an Extraordinary Council Meeting on Thursday 13 October 2016.

       2.3. That Cabinet delegates to the Chief Executive and Leader authority to decide whether or not to accept the fixed RSG settlement.

       2.4.That Cabinet delegates to the Chief Executive and Leader authority to submit an efficiency plan to DCLG as part of any decision to accept a fixed RSG settlement.

REASON FOR REQUEST.....

Every year Full Council considers the annual budget, in detail ,at a special meeting called for  that purpose.

I believe that the Cabinet recommendations, detailed above, are an important part of this budget process .

I believe that Full Council should consider the issue of fixing RSG up until 2019/20,along with consideration of the efficiency plan attached to this deal.

The deadline for submission to DCLG is 14 October 2016  - hence the meeting on the 13 October 2016 will enable Full Council to debate fully these issues with up - to - date information.
      

 
-->

Brent Council's financial decisions 2016-2020 deserve wider debate

The Brent Cabinet on September 13th will be receiving a report on the Council's financial position which forms the backdrop to decisions on the possible fixing of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) for 4 years and the level of Council Tax for the period 2016-2020.

Changes in funding means that the Council will be facing a reduction in income despite an increase in cost pressures and will have a cumulative budget gap of £31m by 2019/20.  Local government financing is due a major restructuring after that date.

If Council Tax is increased by 3.99% a year the gap will be reduced:

Budget proposals are formulated from October onwards but the Cabinet is being asked to delegate a vital decision to Brent's  CEO Carolyn Downs in consultation with Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader, over the next few weeks because the Government's deadline expires before the next Cabinet meeting.

The report outlines the Government's offer:

As part of last year's local government finance settlement councils were given the option of fixing their future RSG allocations until 2020. In principle this could address one key concern that the local government sector has highlighted for a number of years: the difficulty of long-term financial planning when key items of income are only determined annually. 


In order to take advantage of this the council would need to make a decision on the four year settlement option by 14 October 2016 and write formally to DCLG on this. As part of this it would need to present an efficiency plan; central government have indicated that this should not be an onerous document, and can be based on the council’s medium term financial plan. 


This is not a straightforward decision: it is a decision about risk management, and whether accepting or declining the settlement offers the better path for the council to manage its risks. DCLG have set out considerable emphasis that a four year fix is exactly that: it sets RSG until 2020 regardless of what may happen with the economy or other government decisions. Of course, legally, government cannot bind future Parliaments, and so it would technically be possible for the DCLG to reopen the settlement even for those councils that chose to fix their RSG. 


Accepting the four year settlement would give the council more certainty of future funding. This makes financial planning and communication much simpler, and significantly reduces the potential volatility in the system. This creates obvious arguments for accepting the fix, as it will aid the council's budgeting process and hence the quality of decision making. It would also clearly shift the focus onto those sources of funding that the council can influence and control. 


It is not only the decision in principle that has to be made by Butt and Downs but an 'efficiency plan' submitted that will dictate the level of savings (cuts, 'efficiencies' and income generation) over the next four years.

These are major decisions and I do not understand why the Cabinet cannot convene a special meeting before the deadline to consider Downs' proposal and efficiency plan. The wider Labour Group as well as the opposition seem to have been left out of the process completely but their hands will be tied for the next four years by these decisions.

Further. the report discusses at length the various borrowing options open to the Council and calls for Conrad Hall, (the report's author), who is Brent's Chief Finance Officer to be delegated the decision on the hiring of financial advisers in consultation with the Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan:

The traditional way for councils to borrow money for routine capital investment is to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB). However, given the scale of funds the council is planning to borrow there are potentially options that will come in at lower cost than the PWLB, such as issuing bonds that would be available for pension funds to buy, loans from the European Investment Bank (which may still be available after Brexit), or the Municipal Bonds Agency. This list is not exhaustive. 


Evaluating these options is complex, and requires specialist skills. In particular the skills to evaluate not just the headline rate, but also the price the costs of any differences in risk assumed by the council under different circumstances. In addition with any variable rate product, it will be necessary to consider a variety of scenarios to understand under what scenarios the council would benefit from a particular product, and under what scenarios it would lose out from a particular product. 


Further, it could be that the best approach for the council is to offset the risks and benefits of different products available to council, and this approach could be more advantageous than choosing a single, simple product. Alternatively, a single simple product may be more advantageous than more products and the complexity involved. 


The council has the skills and expertise to client advisers for such activity, but it would be unwise to enter into such significant long term commitments without taking proper professional advice. The cost of such advice is not yet known, but is often expressed as a function of the total borrowing requirement. As stated above, this is already known to exceed £100m and, depending on what else the council wants to build into its capital plans, could potentially be much higher than this. 


Owing to the highly technical nature of the advice it is therefore proposed to delegate to the chief finance officer, in consultation with the deputy leader, authority to procure and appoint the necessary advisers. Any decision on the structure of the actual borrowing will of course come back to cabinet for approval. 


The full report covers much more ground very throughly and is available HERE

Public's interest led to details of Davani 'exit payment' being revealed

My attention has been drawn to Minutes of Brent's Audit Committee which give further infromation on Cara Davani's 'pay-off' from the Council. The Minutes do not explain why no disciplinary action was taken against her in 2014 after the Employment Tribunal and why (and by whom) a decision was made in May 2015 to seek legal advice on ending her employment with Brent Council.

Extract from minutes of Brent Council’s Audit Committee meeting held on 30 June 2016 (item 7 – Draft Statement of Accounts, 2015/16)

‘The Chair drew attention to note 30 of the draft accounts, which appeared on page 56 of the printed agenda, and asked officers to clarify the process by which the exit payment to the former HR Director had been agreed, as this was known to be a matter of interest to some members of the public.

Conrad Hall explained firstly that the Council acknowledged that the entire sequence of events reflected poorly on the Council.  He added that the Council was not required to publish the figure, but had chosen to do so. Technically under regulations the note was only required to disclose the remuneration of the Chief Executive, officers reporting directly to the Chief Executive and statutory officers.  The Council’s former HR Director met none of these criteria in 2015/16, the year of account. Nonetheless, officers had decided to publish the figure because of the known interest in it, which was felt outweighed the statutory obligations.

In terms of process, Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.  Conrad Hall added that the terms of the final settlement, essentially one year’s salary plus notice, (which were broadly similar to payments to some other senior managers) had been notified to the external auditor.   Whilst the auditor was not required legally to ‘sign-off’ such payments, he nonetheless had the power to intervene in cases where he felt the Council was acting inappropriately, for example if he considered the payment excessive.  Phil Johnson confirmed this and that he had chosen not to exercise his powers to intervene.  Conrad Hall concluded that the terms of the settlement had therefore been negotiated bearing the commercial considerations in mind.  In response to a question from a member of the committee, Conrad Hall confirmed that the Council’s former HR Director had not been subject to disciplinary or capability proceedings, which would have been a decision of her then line manager.

Members asked why the situation had reached the point it had and further enquired of the process followed.  The Chief Executive explained the circumstances at the time and pointed out the improvements that had since been made to the HR procedures concerned, as referenced in the Annual Governance Statement reported under item 9 on the agenda.  The Chair suggested that consideration be given to what information could be made available on this matter that would provide a time line and demonstrate to members how lessons learnt had led to new improved procedures being introduced.’

Auditor asked to make a Public Interest Report on Davani pay-off

The Cara Davani issue just won't go and the news that she now runs a 'boutique hotel' in Suffolk LINK isn't going to exactly endear her to those who have been seeking out the truth about her £157k pay-off.

Now Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group, has asked Brent Council's Auditor, KPMG, to make a Public Interest Report under Section 24  of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Dear Mr. Johnstone, 

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

As is required by law the request has also been submitted to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer, Conrad Hall.

If anyone else wishes to make a request it must be written in a proper form to the Auditor by August 11th. Here is some guidance from  Philip Grant submitted earlier today as a blog comment:

if you are on the voters list for Brent, you have a right, if you wish, to object to the expenditure of £157,610 by Brent Council, BUT ONLY if you submit your objection in a proper form by Thursday 11 August.

If you do want to do this, it can be done by email to the auditor at KPMG: philip.johnstone@kpmg.co.uk , and a copy must also be sent to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer: conrad.hall@brent.gov.uk .

Your email would need to say that it is about the accounts of the London Borough of Brent for 2015/16, and that you are objecting under Section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

You need to say that you are an elector in Brent, give your full postal address, and (if you know them) the name of the Ward in the borough and the constituency (e.g. Brent North, Brent Central or Hampstead & Kilburn) in which you are registered to vote.

You must say what you believe is wrong about the accounts and why you believe they are wrong. If it is the £157k payment, you should say that you are objecting to the compensation for loss of office payment of £157,610 to Brent's former Human Resources Director, shown at Note 30 (Senior Employees' Remuneration) in the accounts, and that you think it is wrong to include this amount in the accounts because it was not a proper payment for the Council to make.

In support of your objection, you need to explain why you think the £157k should not have been paid, and provide what evidence you can. Based on your comment, you could say that Cara Davani should already have been sacked for gross misconduct after the Tribunal findings against her (Note: these were NOT for racial discrimination, but for victimising Rosemarie Clarke and for wrongly having her suspended for misconduct just because Rosemarie had complained about being bullied and harassed by her); that she should not have been given a compensation payment for leaving (or at most only a small one, quoting the normal redundancy rates from your comment); and that the £157k payment shows she was being treated more favourably than she should have been because she was a crony of Christine Gilbert.

You don't need to provide much evidence, as you can also say that you are aware that there has been another objection about the leaving payment to Cara Davani, and that you would like any evidence provided in any other objections to be used in support of your objection as well.

At the end of your objection email, you would need to ask the auditor to investigate the payment you have objected to, and either:

1) ask the Court to declare the payment unlawful, under Section 28, if he thinks there is a strong enough case for this; or,

2) make a public interest report, under Section 24, giving his views on the payment and asking Brent Council to take action to remedy it.