Democracy in Brent – Open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Webcast recording of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, just about to begin.
(But Cllr. Tatler has to answer an urgent telephone call – I wonder what that was about?)

 

Under my recent guest post, “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet meeting minutes a work of fiction?”, I added several “FOR INFORMATION” comments, sharing the texts of email correspondence I’d had with Council Officers. I was trying to get them to amend the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, so that they show a true and correct record of what happened over the award of the advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge.

 

“FOR INFORMATION 4” was an email I’d sent on Friday afternoon to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), setting out the changes I believed the Council needed to make to item 7 in those minutes. But the people who finally decide (at least officially) whether the minutes of the previous meeting are a correct record are the members of the Cabinet, and this is due to happen at their next meeting, on Monday morning, 17 June, at 10am (or probably 10.01am, by the time they get to item 3 on their agenda). 

 

In view of that, I sent the following open email to the Council Leader and all members of his Cabinet at around 11.30am on Saturday 15 June. (I know it is a weekend, but they are probably all working hard, preparing for Monday’s meeting!) My email forwarded the one I had sent to Debra Norman (and I had anonymised the name of the more junior Council Officer in the version below, to protect his privacy):

 

FW: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect.

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Cabinet members,

 

I am forwarding the email below, which I sent to Debra Norman (Corporate Director, Law and Governance) yesterday afternoon, so that you are aware of the need to amend the published minutes of Cabinet's 28 May meeting, when you deal with item 3, minutes of the previous meeting, at your next meeting on Monday morning, 17 June.

 

I know, from being at the 28 May meeting for this item myself, and from the webcast of it on the Council's website, that the minutes document attached to the agenda for your 17 June meeting does not show a correct record of the proceedings over item 7, the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

 

In my email below, I have set out the changes which need to be made, based on the evidence in the webcast recording. I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.

 

While writing, I would suggest that the method of "voting" on decisions at Cabinet meetings also needs to be changed, as the present 'standard practice'* can lead to misunderstanding.

 

Cabinet meetings are the place where the public should be able to see and hear the borough's big decisions being made. If nobody speaks about the matters being decided, or expresses their view on the decision, for or against (particularly when there is more than one option available), then there is no demonstration of democracy in action.

 

At the very least, when resolutions are put to Cabinet for agreement, or otherwise, the voting should be by a show of hands. I hope that Cabinet will adopt that practice, to avoid any further episodes which could bring the Council into disrepute. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

------------------------------

Forwarded message:

 

Subject: Fwd: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect

 

To: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Further to the emails today from *****  ***** and yourself, in response to my email this morning (sending you a copy of the blog article I had written, which has now been published online: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-in-brent-are-cabinet-meeting.html ), I am writing to confirm that I still wish to challenge the accuracy of item 7 in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.

 

I have noted the explanations given by Mr *****, but believe that the main criticisms of those minutes in my article are still valid. In order to try to resolve this matter, I will set out below the amendments which I believe are required to make the minutes a correct record.

 

1. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'The Cabinet thanked those involved in the work on this and the residents who had put their views forward and RESOLVED, having noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition relating and the following options presented for consideration in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease: 

 

Option A – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled areas.

 

Option B – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.

 

(1) To approve, having taken account of the reasons detailed in paragraph 3.2.6 of the report, the award of contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease on the basis of Option B (namely advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque) to Quintain Ltd.

 

(2) To note the minimum guaranteed amount in respect of Option B would generate additional financial return above the required guarantee over the four-year contract period compared with Option A.

 

(3) To note in respect of Option B the tiled mural with plaque in honour of Bobby Moore would remain on permanent display inside the underpass framed by the lightboxes.' 

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Councillor Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. No Cabinet member indicated that they wished to speak.

 

Councillor Butt then moved the recommendation in the Officer Report, in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He asked whether he could take this in agreement from Cabinet members, and although there was no response from them, he declared that the Recommendation was agreed.’

 

2. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'Following on from the above decision, Philip Grant sought to raise a point of order, which the Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) advised he was not minded to accept on the basis of Mr Grant already having had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. '

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Immediately following that declaration, Philip Grant raised a point of order. Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) refused to acknowledge that a point of order had been raised, but Mr Grant continued to raise it, saying: 'Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.'

 

Councillor Butt continued to object to Mr Grant speaking, on the basis that he had already had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. Councillor Neil Nerva tried to intervene, saying: 'Chair. On a point of order ...', but was ignored by the Council Leader. When Mr Grant finished trying to get his point of order considered by Councillor Butt, the Council Leader said: 'Thank you very much. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’

 

These two proposed changes to the minutes of the meeting for item 7 would remedy the worst of the inaccuracies. If they are made, I would accept that the minutes would then be a true and correct record, which at present they are not. I hope that you can agree to make those changes. Thank you. Best wishes,  Philip Grant.

 

I hope that Councillor Butt and his Cabinet will agree to correct the minutes, but I won’t be holding my breath.

 

Philip Grant

 

* This is the ‘standard practice’ I was referring to in my open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet members, as explained to me by a Brent Council Governance Officer:

 

‘In terms of the minutes, from my perspective these set out in full the decision made at the meeting based on the wording of the recommendations within the accompanying report, which were approved by Cabinet on the basis of Option B being clearly identified by the Leader as the substantive recommendation in relation to the award of the contract for the advertising lease and the remaining recommendations all listed for noting. These were agreed by Cabinet without anyone indicating they were minded to vote against, or seek to amend, with the minutes reflecting standard practice in the way decisions are recorded.’

 

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).

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:

 

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

NUT calls on governors, teachers, councillor and students to challenge government plans

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

 

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 12^th 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.