Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Friday 2 February 2024

Is Muhammed Butt's attempt at increasing the number of councillors required to call decisions in for scrutiny an abuse of democracy?

  

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt: Limitting 'the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him'

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has sent the following message to Debra Norman, Corporate Director of Governace at Brent Council, after changes proposed by Brent Council's Labour leader in the number of councillor's required to sign a call-in request. The number proposed by Cllr Butt would require some Labour councillors to join the Liberal Democract and Conservative opposition to achieve the revised required number.

 

As Labour councillors are tightly whipped this would be extremely unlikely and if they did their card is likely to be marked so that they are barred from committee places and standing again.

 

To Debra Norman,

 

At the meeting the Leader of the Council asked for you to look at increasing the number of required signatures (by Councillors) for a call-in to take place from 5 to somewhere around 10. 

 

 Cllr Butt is perfectly aware that if this change were to occur, call-in’s would no longer take place in Brent as the combined Opposition (the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group) totals 8 elected members. Labour members under the current regime, wouldn’t dare to sign a call-in scrutinising decisions by the Cabinet, for fear of retribution by their Whip. You only have to look at what happened to the Labour members who signed a call-in last term (2018-2022), related to poorly implemented LTN’s. Not one is currently an elected Councillor in Brent.

 

  If the changes suggested by Cllr Butt are agreed to, it would be a total affront to democracy in our borough. Democratic scrutiny is the pillar of healthy and functioning governance. Seeking to stifle it in this way (which is how I view Cllr Butt’s request) sets a very dangerous precedent. It would also once again expose Brent as a place where scrutiny and inclusion of Opposition voice is not welcomed, rather it is frowned upon and limited. As you are aware, following the May 2022 local elections, Cllr Butt took it upon himself to banish Opposition Councillors from Vice-Chairing the two Scrutiny Committees in the borough. The move was seen by others in local government circles as a power grab. Frankly, it looked rather petty and insecure. It also took Officers by surprise, as the move had not been cleared with anyone (not even you?) beforehand.     

                         

 Cllr Butt’s latest attempt to stifle democratic scrutiny by limiting the ability for call-ins to take place is wrong and not in the interest of our residents, who want to see Council decisions challenged forcefully when required. After all, scrutiny leads to better outcomes. Residents are clearly very engaged in local democracy, take just the recent example of a petition on the Council website regarding the blue bag recycling system, which generated close to 3,500 signatures, a record for an e-Petition of this kind in Brent  - https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=267&RPID=0&HPID=0/. If Cllr Butt gets his way, decisions like this, which are clearly very unpopular with Council taxpayers, will likely be left unchallenged.

 

I want to make clear that if Officers agree to take Cllr Butt’s suggestion forward, the Liberal Democrat Group will robustly oppose the changes and will ensure residents are fully aware of the petty dictatorship that he leads.

 

I urge you to reject Cllr Butt’s suggestion and ensure that call-ins, an important form of scrutiny, in a borough with limited scrutiny already, can continue to take place, when they are required and legitimate.

 

I will be making this email public so a debate can begin about the Leader’s latest insecure attempt to limit the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him.

 

EDITOR: Brent Council Call-in Protocol LINK  (Irritatingly Council documents are often undated but I think this is the latest).

Wednesday 16 February 2022

UPDATED: Brent's new website lacks direct link to local democracy and citizen engagement

 



The re-vamped Brent Council website is attractive and the link to services useful but there is a missing link that is important for active citizens who want to participate in decision making.

There is no link to 'Local Democracy'  where citizens can find details of their councillors' contacts, meeting agendas and minutes, information on how to arrange to speak at meetings, information on petitions, election timetables and results and current consultations and consultation results.

These can all be found indirectly by using the 'search' facility, although you have to get the search term right, but for ease of use and accessibility there should be a direct link.

The most common request made by Wembley Matters readers is for councillor contact information and details of consultations - Brent Council should be providing that on its landing page.

There is a feedback form on the site to help make improvements. I have completed it and this is the link if you wish to provide feedback LINK

 UPDATE:

I am grateful to Life in Kilburn for pointing out via Twitter that you can get to the information via the 'Brent Council' tab right at the top of the page next to the Search button. Not at all obvious and as there is a separate tab for 'Residents' doesn't seem to apply to them.  

 

In my opinion it should be far more prominent but this is what the 'Brent Council' tab leads to:

 


Thursday 3 September 2020

Brent & Kilburn Times saved by takeover

 

Some of the many Archant titles

Brent's only surviving local paper, the Brent and Kilburn Times, which during the Covid19 crisis has been asking readers for support has been saved from bankruptcy and potential closure along with other Archant titles. Readers will have noticed how thin the paper has been recently.

The Eastern Daily Press, lead title of the 150 year group, explained the acquisition by Rcapital.

Norwich-based Archant - which publishes EDP, Norwich Evening News and many newspaper and magazine titles throughout East Anglia and beyond - has been acquired by new investors who will provide funding to continue its transformation into a successful modern media company.

The announcement also gives security for many hundreds of Archant pensioners and their families, and protects the hundreds of local businesses Archant trades with, who may otherwise have suffered losses 
had the business, hit hard by Covid-19, been forced into bankruptcy.

Simon Bax, Archant’s Executive Chairman, said safeguarding the interests of local suppliers and customers, and its near-1,000 employees had been his priority.

Archant and our newspapers and magazines are an intrinsic part of East Anglian life. Not only do we employ hundreds of people in the region, but we are also an important part of hundreds of other local businesses who supply us, or depend on us to help grow their business.

Like so many other businesses, Covid-19 threw us into a very difficult position. Naturally, I am very sad this deal marks the end of ownership of the local families who founded our company all that time ago. But equally I am happy we have found a new partner who respects our heritage and is able to nurture Archant’s future.

I would also like to thank the Colman and Copeman families who have been the custodians of quality journalism in East Anglia for so long – their legacy is a modern media company that will continue to proudly serve the region.

The new owners, family-based firm Rcapital, specialise in backing companies with immediate financial challenges but who otherwise have ambitious and compelling plans for commercial success.

Chris Campbell, partner at Rcapital, said:

We are incredibly pleased to have worked alongside Archant’s management team and KPMG to put forward a plan that will restructure finances and inject fresh capital into one of Britain’s oldest local newspaper brands. We are hopeful, that with the support of its creditors, Archant will emerge from this challenging period as a stronger business that continues to provide a vital service to its clients and readership. Today’s announcement marks an exciting next phase for both Archant and Rcapital - I am looking forward to working with Simon and his team to deliver on the transformation plan.

Like many other businesses in the UK, Archant had become increasingly hamstrung by multi-million payments required to pay down the large deficit in its long-defunct company pension scheme.

Under the deal, that pension scheme has been transferred to the Pension Protection Fund, a public body responsible for managing almost a quarter of a million pensions in the UK.

Shareholders in holding company Archant Limited, which has been placed into administration as part of the change of ownership, have been informed their shares are now of no value.

There is no interruption to publishing in the business, which continues to trade as before.

Clearly it is early days and we will have to wait to see what the 'transformation plans' will mean in terms of jobs and the survival of titles. Closure or transfer to on-line would be a blow against local democracy. The group have this week launched a campaign backing local councils' demands for adequate post-Covid funding.


Sunday 9 August 2020

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor calls on colleagues to reject 'weak offer' on Labour Group democracy that reinforces Brent Council leader's power

Brent Council Leader is not always happy with councillors who are independent thinkers

In May 2020 Cllr Muhammed Butt had been leader of Brent Council for 8 years, having gained power at the 2012 AGM which saw Ann John ousted as Leader.

The Labour Group AGM this year has been delayed, possibly until September, depending on Covid restrictions, so a report on democracy in the Council appeared timely.

Cllr Butt has already had rule changes put in place, with the support of the Labour Group, which makes him no longer subject to annual re-election as Leader.

Decisions are made mainly by a 10 person Cabinet and most of them also serve on the General Purposes Committee with the addition of one Conservative representative. Much power resides in the Leader who allocates the various positions that attract additional allowances. It's unclear how much this is influenced by votes of the group rather than the Leader's  personal preferences.

It is no secret that many backbenchers are frustrated in their role. Without any additional position they feel they are no more than a conduit for residents' complaints about missed waste collections and potholes - just referring them on to officers in the various council departments.

There have been some happy exceptions to the rule in task groups set up by Scrutiny Committees but mostly backbenchers are kept out of policy making except for the ritual raising of hands at Full Council meetings. Some brave souls, who not want to vote for the cuts or other controversial matters, either absent themselves entirely or sneak out to the lavatory when the vote is taken.






Cllr Gill has written to Cllr Thomas Stephens and all members of the Labour Group giving his reasons for leaving. He is critical of  Stephens' chairing and questions his motives in producing what he calls a 'soft report.'

He points out that over the last 10 years the number of elections held within the group, over the 4 year period of an administration, has gone from 48 to 8.

 Gill claims that his call for more elections and term limits was answered by 'democracy causes arguments and disharmony' and that this sounded more like
more like a North Korean apparatchik than any kind of Democrat.

His email alleges that a loophole that would enable the Leader and Deputy leader to swap jobs after the 8 year terms was up, and thus continue for another year, was pointed out but that the loophole was not closed by the Chair.

Gill claimed that direct elections were rejected and an unspecified  selection procedure supported  instead that he said would allow the Leader to vet any people he did not like and keep them off the shortlist.

He concludes that this was a 'soft report'  and calls on his councillor colleagues to vote it down until they get a better offer.

The report is embedded below for readers to consider the arguments:



Friday 1 June 2018

Do afternoon Cabinet meetings reduce accountability?

I thought that the early timing of the first Cabinet meeting of the new administration was deliberately fixed to allow a General Purposes Committee (with almost the same personnel) to take place afterwards, but the next Cabinet meeting is at 4pm on June 18th.

This switch to office hours clearly makes it easier for officers, and perhaps reduces costs, but at the same time restricts the ability of the public who are in employment or have school age children to attend to watch proceedings or make representations. The same must go for backbench councillors who work.

The last Cabinet meeting only lasted about 20 minutes as major items were rubber-stamped and it is likely that Cabinet meetings held at 4pm will routinely be over by 5pm.

This may be a small point but is part of a gradual erosion of transparency when it is even more important that a council with a very large majority and a tiny official oppositon is held to account.




Thursday 13 October 2016

Talk to Brent Chairs of Scrutiny today and tomorrow

As part of Brent's Local Democracy Week the chairs of the two Brent Scrutiny Committees are available to speak to residents:

Thursday 13 and Friday 14 October
  Cllr Kelcher, and Cllr Sheth are the Chairs of the two scrutiny committees, which scrutinises the work done by the council and its partners to make sure it is effective and efficient.

Meet Cllr Kelcher and discuss:
      • customer care and customer access to services
      • the councils’ budget
      • crime
      • unemployment
      • business rates
      • high streets
      • complaints to the council
On Thursday 13 October from 10.30am to 12.30pm at Rubio, 43 Park Parade NW10 4JD.


Meet Cllr Sheth and discuss:
      • housing
      • air quality
      • schools
      • libraries
      • children’s oral health
On Friday 14 October from 3pm to 5pm at Costa Coffee, 4 Central Square, Wembley, HA9 7FA.
The conversation continues on twitter for an hour, follow the conversation @Brent_Council and take part using #scrutinybrent

To book your personal time slot at either café please contact Anne Kittappa or 020 8937 6060.

Thursday 7 April 2016

Ask London Mayoral candidates to pledge support for voting reform

From Unlock Democracy

It is a fortnight since we launched the Stand Up for Democracy campaign. Thousands of emails have been sent asking the next Mayor of London to fix our city’s broken democracy. Will you join them?

Together we set out to find out where they stand on on voting reform, and on empowering the London Assembly. Both Labour’s Sadiq Khan and the Green Party’s Siȃn Berry have come out in support of the campaign.

Ask the #LondonMayor2016 candidates

We need your help. We want to get all the candidates to tell us what they will do to bring about voting reform both locally and nationally. We want to know that they are prepared to give the London Assembly the teeth it desperately needs to keep the Mayor accountable.

We’ve got two of the main parties to pledge stand up for democracy, now let’s get the rest of the 10 candidates for London Mayor to do the same. Help us put the pressure on the candidates. The more of us asking, the harder it is for them to ignore.

Please ask them to Stand Up for Democracy in London. Show them that Londoners Stand Up Democracy.

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY

Saturday 21 November 2015

Brent’s Coat of Arms – some thoughts on history, and on justice

Guest bog by Philip Grant
The Coat of Arms which used to grace the front of Brent Town Hall in Forty Lane has been preserved, and will shortly be on display in the Civic Centre. A few weeks ago, I was contacted by Brent’s Regeneration Department, and asked if I would ‘review for accuracy’ the proposed text of the sign which would be displayed alongside it. As a keen local historian, I was happy to assist them, and was able to correct several minor errors and suggest some improvements. The resulting text and artwork for the sign can be seen below.



This coat of arms used to appear on Brent Council’s letterhead, and on various Council publications, but in recent years has been replaced by a modern branding logo. Looking at the coat of arms again, and the civic messages it conveys, has given me some thoughts which I will share with you here. Please feel free to add your own thoughts as “comments” below.

The designers could not use all of the information which I supplied. One of the details left out, about the banner held by the lion (taken from Wembley’s coat of arms), was that it shows the scales of justice, and commemorates the Saxon moot court held at a site near the present-day Kingsbury Circle. There was a form of local government here a thousand years ago, when Wembley was part of an area of Middlesex known as the Hundred of Gore. The name had nothing to do with blood, but with the triangular spear-head shape of the small field where the Hundred’s inhabitants used to meet.

The Moot (or meeting) for each Hundred was held in the open air on a regular basis, to discuss any problems, disputes or petty crimes which had arisen in the Hundred since the last meeting. The parties to an issue raised would put their case, anyone else who had a point to make could do so, and the matter would then be decided by a vote. The majority view decided the issue, and everyone was expected to accept it.

Illustration of a Saxon Moot, from “Wembley through the Ages” by the Rev. H.W.R. Elsley

I do not know how well this early system of local government worked in practice, but both Wembley (in the 1930’s) and Brent (when it was formed in 1965) were keen to use the symbol of the scales of justice, to show their commitment to fairness for all, which is what the Moot was meant to deliver. 
 
With over 300,000 inhabitants, it is not possible for the people of our borough to meet together in a field for an open discussion of issues which are then decided by a majority vote. Once every four years, we elect 63 councillors to represent us, in the expectation that they will hear the facts and evidence on matters of local concern, debate them and reach decisions democratically. Like the Saxon villagers of old, we have the right to attend Council meetings, and for several years we have been able to watch and listen to Full Council meetings online. In June 2014, we were given the hope that we could participate in our modern version of the Moot, when “Deputations” were introduced. The Council Leader explained the purpose of these in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” (12 June 2014) as follows:

‘Cllr Butt said, “New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account.” ‘

So far, in my experience, this measure to bring more openness into Brent’s local democracy has not lived up to its original promise.

Martin Francis made the first request to present a Deputation in September 2014, on the (overdue) appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. He was denied the chance to speak, on the grounds that he had not given sufficient notice (even though he did so within the time set out in a “tweeted” invitation issued by Brent Council itself) LINK 

I have given valid notice to make Deputations a number of times, but have never been allowed to present them. I asked Scrutiny Committee, in November 2014, to allow me to make a Deputation seeking scrutiny of Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case. They were persuaded not to hear me, by misleading advice from Brent’s then Legal Director (who had a clear conflict of interests in the matter). LINK 

At the end of April 2015, I gave notice to make a Deputation about the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review, which was on the Scrutiny Committee agenda. I was told that I could do so, but only if I did not refer to the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, which the review had been set up to learn the lessons from. Although I explained why it would be both relevant and reasonable to refer to that case, the committee accepted the advice of Council lawyers that I should not be allowed to speak on those terms. LINK
 

A year after Martin’s first attempt, I asked to present a Deputation to Full Council, to welcome the new Chief Executive, and to emphasise the importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out Council business. On this occasion, I was prevented from speaking only by the personal discretion of the Chief Legal Officer, who wrongly claimed that my proposed subject was ‘inappropriate’, and ‘in reality, a complaint about how the Council has handled your request for greater transparency.’ LINK
 

Does Brent Council still uphold the spirit of fairness that its use of the scales of justice in its Coat of Arms was meant to show? You can add your answers, whether “yes” or “no”, as comments below. Personally, I hope that the presence of the Coat of Arms, on display in the Civic Centre, will be a reminder to councillors and Council Officers of the standards that, historically, Brent should be aspiring to.

Philip Grant

  Text and artwork for the proposed sign at Brent Civic Centre

 

Saturday 14 November 2015

Staff and parents press for secret ballot on Furness academisation

The audience at the academies meeting  
Statement from ATL, GMB, NASUWT, NUT, UNISON

Parents and staff from Furness Primary School, Harlesden, London gathered[1] to voice their deep concerns as to why their school was proposed to be turned into an academy. The Governors of Furness and Oakington Manor, federated schools, have made an application to turn the two schools into a sponsored academy trust without having first consulted parents and staff.

The question asked by everyone at the meeting was why? Furness school received a good rating by Ofsted in June this year. Oakington is currently rated as outstanding. The two schools federated three years ago to prevent Furness (which was then in special measures) closing or being taken over by an academy chain such as ARK.

The audience listened to Bridget Chapman, Chair of the Anti Academies Alliance, explain what academisation was all about – privatisation of state education and ultimately schools to be run for profit. She spoke about the evidence from research that showed that 13% of sponsored academies were classed as failing yet on 3% of state schools were in this Ofsted category. Further, the data shows a higher rate of exclusion among black and minority ethnic children in academies and there are fewer children with special educational needs. 99 academies had received warnings from the DfE about their financial dealing and 11 academy chains had received multiple warnings. The percentage of primary schools that have become academies is still very small and many of those have been forced to by the DfE despite there being no evidence that academies improve education for children, in fact the opposite.  Analysis of primary school results indicates that academy conversion actually slows progress” (Local Schools Network research).

Jean Roberts spoke on behalf of the education unions and told the audience how the unions had been stopped from making any presentation to staff at the so called consultation meetings held at both schools the previous week, as to why the education unions are united against the proposal. Staff who wanted to hear them, were shushed and told to be quiet by Mr Jhally, Chair of Governors of the Federation, when they protested. A motion of support for a campaign against the academy which had been passed by the Kensal Green Labour Party group was read out to much applause.

Mrs Libson who is the Executive headteacher of the federated schools had told the staff consultation meetings it was because Brent had done “nothing for the schools”. Brent LA dispute this most strongly. Jean Roberts had been sent a copy of the Brent Audit Report for Oakington Manor in June 2015. Auditors were unable to say that its accounts and accounting procedures were fully in order[2]. The report stated, “The key areas of weaknesses related to high value expenditure, income administration, stock management and pension administration”. One of the criteria Ofsted inspects in schools is the Governors oversight of school finances.

Janice Long a local councillor, who sent a message of support for the campaign against an academy, asked if the imminent Ofsted may be a reason for this rushed application.

Euton Stewart from GMB explained that in his experience the support staff were the first to be made redundant in academies. Academies can employ unqualified teachers, another concern of the teaching staff there. Parents spoke about the good teachers and the education they provided for their children at Furness and how all this change was unnecessary now the school had been given a good by Ofsted.

There was a clear commitment to continue to seek a secret ballot for parents and staff so that the Governors would fully know their views. Parents will continue to collect signatures on the petition. Staff are looking to hold meetings to discuss what they will do in response.


[1] Meeting held on 12th November at St Mark’s Church hall, Kensal Rise, London.
[2] Reporting Definition of Limited assurance: Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the client’s objectives at risk.
The level of non-compliance puts the client’s objectives at risk.

Friday 9 October 2015

Democracy for Sale?

As Brent Council prepares to celebrate Local Democracy Week  LINK guest blogger Scott Bartle raises some pertinent questions about the role of money in national elections.
 

First things first, if spending money wasn’t felt to affect the result of an election it wouldn’t be done. We know how much politicians like money as evidenced by their expenses claims. Generally when we consider excessive election spending we look over to the United States where an exorbitant amount is spent per election cycle reaching over $6Billion in 2012. Yet in the UK we are beginning to be faced with similar questions. As an example, I’ll provide the expenses information from across the three constituencies of Brent.

·      Hampstead & Kilburn:
Tulip Siddiq was elected with a total spend of £42,752.16

·      Brent Central:
Dawn Butler was duly elected MP with a total spend of  £18,823.74 

·      Brent North:
Barry Gardiner spent £25,973.24 to be elected in his ‘safe seat’.

To put this into context we as the Green Party struggled raising the £500 for deposits to stand for election in the first place. It was thanks to national and local Crowdfunder campaigns that we were able to put up an almost full slate.  

Once you’re over that hurdle the bare minimum that voters expect from candidates and what you hope to provide is information as to why you’re standing. The government provides a ‘free-post’ scheme however you still have to pay for the printing of the leaflets which whilst almost prohibitive for us can certainly be out of reach for independent candidates. Indeed, the independent candidate standing for Brent North, Elcena Jeffers MBE spent absolutely nothing. Brent Green’s total spend for Brent North was £795.95 with the majority of that (£600) on the ‘free’ - post. Meanwhile Barry Gardiner spent £10,457.64 on leaflets, £90 for some people to do the ‘folding’ for him, as well as £4950.77 on staff, £3352.76 on an office and utilities, £150 on rosettes, £145 on stickers, £119.40 on Balloons, £343,95 on Helium gas all within what was described as a ‘safe-seat’. It can feel difficult to complete when even Labour, as a party that purports to represent the ‘working class’ spends the equivalent of 4 newly qualified nurses salaries on 3 constituencies alone.

Does the public wish to elect people to parliament based upon policy or plentiful purses? As with any fairground, (well Barry bought the balloons) it appears those who have the money to throw the most balls at the coconuts always get the prize. This presents a particularly unfair environment for Independents who receive very limited media space and as such he public might never know nor have the opportunity to decide if their policies were what they were looking for.

A complaint with our political system is that elected politicians are not representative of the communities they wish to serve. Yet, if it’s difficult for those who might be, to achieve the parity to even be heard, economic inequality will forever translate into political inequality.

Whilst arguments for electoral reform are focused upon proportional representation, it would be a mistake to forget about the finances. Even a separate room in polling stations with poster presentations of politicians’ policy could contribute towards making a difference. In 2011 Sir Christopher Kelly calculated that it would cost £23million per year to fund a state funded political system (that’s 50p per person for reductionists out there). When as a country we spend more per year on the upkeep of a Monarchy as opposed to ensuring a level playing field for a fair and transparent democratic process we know the system is broken. We will forever be disappointed that our parliament is not representative of people by Gender, Age, Ability, Ethnicity, Education, Socio-economic status or sexuality.     

Scott Bartle is a member of Brent Green Party and this year stood as a candidate in the constituency of Brent North.

Monday 3 November 2014

Romanians protest at denial of democratic right to vote in Romanian election at Wembley polling station



Tuesday 21 October 2014

Greens back Occupy Protest as Jenny Jones arrested


Jenny Jones. Green Assembly Member for London, was arrested this morning at Parliament Square when visiting the protestors there. She was witness to a close friend being arrested as part of the protest in defence of civil liberties and the right to protest. She was released soon afterwards. 

Jenny is former member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and is deputy chair of the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee. She has been a consistent advocate of civil liberties and has worked closely with the police on how protests should be facilitated. 

Jenny Jones said: 
The police have a duty to facilitate peaceful protest in this country which people have a legal right to do, but that appears to end as soon as you come within shouting distance of the Westminster village. The people who run this country should not be able to tuck demonstrators away out of sight. Parliament needs to listen and people should have the right to get their voices heard.
 Responding to Jenny's arrest, Green Party leader Natalie Bennett immediately tweeted: "Proud of @GreenJennyJones for standing up for the right of peaceful protest. Let's defend democracy." 
 
Bennett later added: 
There is cause for serious concern about the nature of the policing of the Occupy demonstration. I spoke at the event on Saturday after the TUC march and there was at that time a large number of police present - no doubt at very considerable expense - for a small, peaceful demonstration that involves workshops and speakers such as economists, scientists and politicians.

There are reports that protesters had umbrellas, cash and other items of no conceivable aggressive use confiscated, and that police in large numbers have tried to make their continued presence as physically uncomfortable as possible.

Prime Minister David Cameron was recently rightly speaking up for the rights of free assembly of the people of Hong Kong. He might like to look out his office window and ensure that the same rights are being respected in London.

Thursday 18 September 2014

London Green Parties oppose Mayor's Development Corporation in Old Oak/Park Royal

The following  motion, proposed by Brent Green Party, has been passed unanimously by the London Federation of Green Parties.

--> “We call on the London Federation of Green Parties and the Green Party GLA members to oppose the Mayor’s plans to remove local planning powers over the Old Oak/Park Royal area as we believe this undermines local democracy and may further worsen  social and housing inequalities in order to increase private profit.”

Thursday 4 September 2014

Ledden claims Brent Council tweeted in 'error' to 8,000 followers inviting them to speak at Monday's Full Council meeting - then bars Martin Francis from speaking

Regular reader will know about the issues around democracy and Brent Council (refresher course: LINK ) and these came to a ahead wsith the Labour landslide  with proposals to limit questions to the Cabinet and have just one 'super' Scrutiny Committee. At the same time Muhammed Butt tried to get a change in rules which would have meant the Labour leadership only being contested every four years.

A concession made to the public was that they would be allowed to address full Council.

On Friday August 29th Brent Council sent out this tweet: (Screen grab)

Clear enough you might think and having posted about the opportunity on this blog and on Facebook I sent in a request on Monday morning to have a deputation on the issue of the appointment of a Permanent Chief Executive.

The previous adminstration had accepted a report from Fional Ledden (Chief Legal Officer) to continue with Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert's acting appointment until after the May 2014 local elections. According to Ledden this was in order to ensure a smooth transfer to the Civic Centre, continuity during the election and because market conditions were not right for recruitment.

The then Liberal Democrat opposition had opposed this and called for an open and transparent recruitment process. LINK

I was surprised to receive a belated response from Fiona Ledden refusing my request as it had not been received by the  'deadline of August 29th'.

I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):
Thank you for your letter informing me that I cannot have a deputation to Full Council because my email was sent on Monday September 1st and the deadline was Friday August 29th.
I sent my email in response to a Tweet from Brent Council which quite clearly stated that the deadline was Noon on Monday September 1st. The Tweet was sent out by the Council on August 29th.

I therefore repeat my request to speak to full Council on the issue of appointing a Permanent Chief Executive.
I received the following letter  from Fiona Ledden in response:
Thank you for your email in response to my letter. 
Please accept our apologies for the confusion. The Tweet you refer to was published in error and this is something I shall follow up. 

I refer you to Standing Order 39 in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution “Any person wishing to make a deputation shall give written notice to the Director of Legal and Procurement of the title and summary of the content of the deputation not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting”. The deadline for deputations was 29 August 2014. 

As stated in my original response to your email, you will receive a written response to your question in due course.
Brent Council has about 8,000 followers, some of whom will have retweeted the notice, so that is some error!

I am used to Fiona Ledden's method when challenged, she basically seeks to grind you down and then eventually close down any correspondence.  There are several guest blogs on Wembley Matters that testify to this method.

Undaunted I replied again this morning:

Dear Ms Ledden,
I am afraid that i am not satisfied with your response.  An invitation that went out to almost 8,000 followers of Brent Council on Twitter, and was then further distributed by some of them, cannot simply be dismissed as an 'error'.

Furthermore even the 5 day's notice in Standing Orders does not say '5 working days'.  Even if we take that to be what is meant, a deadline of Noon on Monday would give 5-1/2 days between the deadline and the evening meeting on September 8th. That is Monday afternoon, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and the following Monday.

I therefore ask you to reconsider my request to speak as a delegation to the Full Council on September 8th on the issue of appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.
 You may not be surprised to learn that I have had no reply.  

If Muhammed Butt and his Cabinet were genuine in their commitment to give the public a voice in representation and decision making, it seems that their desires are being thwarted.

In the Standing Orders approved by the Council at their first meeting Fiona Ledden granted some fairly draconian powers over selecting delegations to speak at full Council meetings. No one from any party questioned these powers although they were commented on here:

Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.
So if I complain the issue will get caught up in the complaints procedure and therefore cannot be raised by me or anyone else.  If I make a fuss then it could be labelled vexatious. And if I suggest that perhaps something is being hidden or avoided, or someone being protected, then that could be defamatory.

If all else fails then Ms Ledden can refuse the deputation on the the grounds that it is inappropriate for 'any other reason'.

Regular readers will remember that Ms Ledden wrote to  Wembley Matters 'requring' us to remove documentation about the Audit and Investigation team's report on allegations against Brent's Acting Head of Human Resources LINK We refused to comply on grounds of public interest.

Is there any councillor out there who will stand up and question this nonsense?