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

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

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

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

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

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

RESOLVED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:

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

The General Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brent Council settles Employment Tribunal compensation out of court

Ten minutes before the Employment Tribunal remedy hearing was due to start at Watford Tribunal on Wednesday  Brent Council settled with Rosemarie Clarke's legal team out of court.

Although details are subject to a Confidentiality Agreement an award would normally cover legal costs and loss of earnings.

This marks almost the last chapter in the saga with the main protagonists including Cara Davani, Andy Potts, Fiona Ledden and Christine Gilbert no longer employed by Brent Council.

Muhammed Butt, a stout defender of Cara Davani, remains in post and of course Philip Grant's two questions remain unanswered.

Truth or Cover Up? Brondesbury Park Conservatives table motion calling for independent inquiry into Clarke-Davani case

Brondesbury Park  Conservative ward councillors have tabled the following motion for the full Brent Council Meeting to be held on September 7th 2015:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........

1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?

2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part ,if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?

4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?

5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent  indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?

6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?

7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?

8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

This Council believes this  is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry

'Misrepresentation' and the racial discrimination Judgment against Brent Council

Guest blog by Philip Grant. This is Philip's response to Muhammed Butt's statement  LINK on the Davani issue.

Dear Councillor Butt,

Your statement (to members of the Council?) about the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case has been published on the "Wembley Matters" blog website, and I am writing to respond to some of the points you have made, as I suspect that I am one of the main sources of the alleged 'untruths' which you have referred to. You have said:

'Much has been written and said about the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been inaccurate and unfair.  The Council’s normal policy is not to comment on the detail of individual cases and for a considerable time we have held to this line. However, the time has come where the Council needs to set out the facts in the light of continued misrepresentation of the judgement.'

I have written to you about this case on a number of occasions since May 2014 (when it was reported in a local newspaper), and on 21 September 2014 I wrote to you saying:

'I can understand you not wishing to comment on this matter publicly when you had an election to win, and when the Employment Tribunal proceedings were still in progress, but now that the judgement has been made, and is in the public domain, you as Leader of the Council need to be seen to be taking the right action to deal with it.'

Sadly, having done nothing about the case for more than ten months (other than assisting senior officers in an attempted cover-up of the facts), it is you who is now trying to misrepresent the Judgment. 

As you may not have it readily available, I will remind you of what I wrote to you on 28 September 2014, referring to comments I had made on the "Brent & Kilburn Times" website under an article reporting that Brent had announced it would appeal against the judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and giving advice on how the Council could, in practice, mitigate the finding of "racial discrimination" against it by not appealing, but by telling the truth instead:

‘Brent may have obtained 'independent legal advice', but who at Brent Council assessed that advice, and who are the 'we' who decided to appeal?

  

Presumably Fiona Ledden was involved, but her judgement on this is seriously compromised by the lack of credibility of the evidence she gave (on oath?) to the tribunal over who made the decision to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had left Brent's employment, which is at the heart of the racial discrimination finding against the Council. If Andy Potts, Brent's Senior Employment Lawyer, was involved, he appears to have a conflict of interest, as Ms Davani's partner in their private lives. The barrister or QC who gave the advice may have pointed out some weaknesses in the tribunal's judgement, but would also have a vested interest in the matter because of the large fees they could earn if Brent did appeal.

 

As I have said in the second of my comments attached, any appeal against the tribunal's decision can only be made on points of law (or 'legal errors', as your statement puts it) - the facts have been found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, and that evidence supports their findings that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised, by Ms Davani and by Brent as her employer. Once Ms Clarke had established, on good evidence, that she had been treated differently from Clive Heaphy, the legal onus was on Brent to show why the difference in treatment was a valid one, and Brent completely failed to do that. That was why, in the circumstances, the tribunal was correct, in law, to find that racial discrimination was a factor in the victimisation and constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke.

 

You will see, from my second comment that I don't believe that racial discrimination was the main reason (if a reason at all) for the victimisation. On the evidence, Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani because she had the courage to complain that she was being bullied by Ms Davani, and rather than giving her the proper protection required by its procedures, Brent allowed Ms Davani to play an increasingly vicious role against Ms Clarke. It is possible that Ms Davani genuinely thought that Ms Clarke was "playing the system" (there is no evidence on this), but even if she did, as Brent's top HR Officer she should have followed the rules, and not allowed her anger at Ms Clarke to override her professional responsibilities.

 

The problem for Brent got worse after Ms Clarke made her claim to the Employment Tribunal. It was decided to fight her claim by carrying on with disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke, in the hope that by finding her guilty of gross misconduct they could claim that if she had not resigned, she would have been dismissed anyway. That tactic backfired, especially after Brent could not (or would not) admit who had made that decision. I referred to para. 240 of the judgement in my email of 21 September, and have included the full text of it in my second comment attached. If Fiona Ledden did not make the decision herself, as she stated in her oral evidence, she would have known who it was made by. I suspect that it was probably made by either Cara Davani or Andy Potts, but Ms Ledden would have known that if she disclosed that to the tribunal the judgement would inevitably have gone against Brent Council. 

You have announced that Brent will appeal, but hopefully that appeal has not been submitted to the High Court yet. There is a way of "clearing Brent's name" over the racial discrimination issue without wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of funds the Council cannot afford, and which it should be spending instead on meeting the needs of local people, rather than in trying to protect Cara Davani. The way is by giving the true reason for the victimisation, and I will explain how this could be achieved. 

... The "U turn" over the appeal can be achieved by either you, or Cllr. Pavey under his review, finding that on further examination of the facts, the real reason why Rosemarie Clarke was victimised was because of the personal actions of Ms Davani, and that no racial discrimination was involved at all. The finding of racial discrimination was a 'legal technicality', resulting from errors made in preparing Brent's case for the tribunal, and this and procedural errors by other senior council officers in dealing with Ms Clarke's complaints of bullying and harassment against her by Ms Davani will be dealt with as part of Cllr. Pavey's review. As part of the announcement that Brent will not now be appealing against the tribunal's decision, you will, of course, need to be able to say that Ms Davani has resigned with immediate effect (or that she has been suspended while her alleged misconduct in this case is dealt with) and that Brent Council will ensure that Rosemarie Clarke will receive full compensation as soon as possible.

I hope you will find this email constructive and helpful. Once again, I am trying to help Brent, and help you, to do the right thing. My interference may be annoying, but if you are genuine about the need to 'allow residents to hold the Council to account' (see my email of 9 September, to which I am still awaiting your reply), you and your colleagues do need to consider the views of independent minds in the local community, especially when they put forward potentially sensible alternatives to the "in house" advice you have received.’  

I suspect that the reason you have issued your statement now may be connected with my efforts to establish whether the rumours of a "pay off" by Brent to Cara Davani, on her leaving the Council at the end of June, are true: and in the growing interest among Brent councillors to establish the justification for any such "pay off", if the interim Chief Executive or Chief Legal Officer have to confirm that there was some form of "pay off". I am copying this email to your Cabinet colleagues, and will forward a copy to my Ward councillors and to members of Brent's Scrutiny Committee, for their information. 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

Philip Grant's letter to councillors on this issue LINK

Will 'cronyism' allegations re-emerge after new Brent Council appointment?

I heard yesterday that Lorraine Langham had been offered one of the newly created Corporate Management Team jobs at Brent Council after interview.  The job of Chief Operating Officer is part of the senior management restructuring carried out by Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani. It is a one year fixed term appointment at salary of £125-142k. LINK

The restructuring saw the departure, with compensation, of Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement and Ben Spinks, Assistant Chief Executive Officer, over the Christmas holiday.

I sought confirmation of the appointment from Brent Council press office at 9.30am this morning but they have still not got back to me at 2,15pm. However, I do think the appointment, if it has been made, is important background to the deliberations of the General Purposes Committee which will be discussing Michael Pavey's HR review at 6pm this evening.

Lorraine Langham, like several of the present CMT, has previouslly worked for Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted. (See table below). Like Gilbert and Davani she also has her own private company. She is no stranger to controversy over her alleged friendship with Christine Gilbert as this hit the headlines in 2007 and again in February last year. LINK

The Daily Express reported:

In 2006 the wife of Labour minister Tony McNulty, Christine Gilbert, was appointed as Chief Inspector of Schools at the watchdog.

Within a year, Ms Gilbert had appointed a number of former colleagues to key positions within Ofsted.

Ms Gilbert - the former chief executive of Tower Hamlets council - recruited her friend Lorraine Langham to be Ofsted's £120,000-a-year director of corporate services.

Ms Langham had worked for Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets as communications chief through a company she ran called Verve Communications.

That company was paid £923,000 from Tower Hamlets over a two-year period.

The then-MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, George Galloway, said at the time:  "You have a situation where this woman is a propagandist for probably the worst council in Britain and, lo and behold, she gets a job with her best pal.

"There is not a whiff of cronyism, there is a stench of cronyism.

"You would have thought Labour would have learned something but, clearly, they believe they are above scrutiny."

Ms Gilbert and Ofsted denied the allegation at the time, saying Ms Langham had been appointed after a thorough and transparent recruitment process.

Ms Langham remains Ofsted’s chief operating officer.

I am sure that this was also a 'thorough and transparent recruitment process' and that Brent HR made sure any connections and associations were declared.

Tony McNulty is a Labour Party activist working hard for a Labour General Election victory in Brent and Christine Gilbert is Brent's neutral Returning Officer.

For those losing track of Brent Council's version of 'Only Connect' here is a useful table:

-->

Name	Brent Position	Tower Hamlets position	Ofsted Position	Private companies
Christine Gilbert	Acting Chief Executive (current)	Chief Executive	Chief Inspector	Christine Gilbert Associates
Cara Davani	Director of Human Resources (current) Drew up Gilbert’s contract Second respondent in Employment Tribunal Case	Director Human Resources	Organisation change and HR Consultant	Cara Davani Ltd
Clive Heaphy	Director of Finance (left Brent after Gross Misconduct charges withdrawn.) Drew up Cara Davani’s contract, Now at HS2. His treatment was contrasted with that of Rosemarie Clarke in  the Employment Tribunal Judgment and was the basis of the Racial Discrimination finding		Interim Director of Finance
Thomas Cattermole	Head of Executive and Members’ Service (current)		Christine Gilbert’s Executive Assistant
Lorraine Langham	Chief Operating Officer (Current TBC)	Various interim roles	Director of Corporate Services	Verve Communications

The membership of the General Purposes Committee (if there are no substitutions) is exactly the same as the Cabinet except that Cllr Mashari is not a member of GP. Cllr Suresh Kansagara, leader of the Kenton Conservatives joins his Labour colleagues on GP.

Seething behind the scenes at Brent Council's meeting tonight

The format of Brent Council meetings these days is pretty predictable.  LINK The Leader makes a speech extolling the virtues of Labour members, outlines the difficult conditions caused by Coalition cuts and berates the opposition and then reaffirms the administration's commitment to protecting the vulnerable. Often adding that none of us became councillors to make cuts but we have to obey the law'.

The Tories refer to the mess left by Labour, wastefulness of the Council and go on about parking charges.

Questions to Cabinet members now have to be sent in advance so answers are carefully crafted. Backbench councillors ask prepared questions (often read out in stilted fashion) to Cabinet members that enable the latter to preen themselves and boast of their achievements with the opportunity for an additional swipe at the opposition.

Towards the end of the meeting Motions are put by Labour, Conservative Officials (Kenton) and Conservative Provisionals (Brondesbury Park). There's some Punch and Judy exchanges with the lone Lib Dem councillor looking a little lost; and then the Labour motion is approved and the Conservative motions defeated.

The unpredictability lies mainly with the voting of the Conservative groups and whether the Officials support the Provisionals or remain loyal to the Labour Group who granted them official status.

Tonight Cllr John Warren is moving a motion that regrets the fact that Standing Order changes mean that they cannot propose a vote of 'No Confidence' in Councillor Butt.

Warren will not have endeared himself to the Kenton councillors with the tweet he sent out in the early hours this morning:

 Kenton Conservative Councillor Bhiku M Patel died recently while on holiday in India.

Hardly tasteful tweeting.

Underneath all this there are real issues that could be raised. One is an update on the progress of appointing a new Chief Executive Officer. The Minutes of the September 2014 meeting record:

The Leader referred to the decision taken in June 2013 regarding the appointment of a new Chief Executive.  He stated that the external auditors were reporting back on how the Council was operating and whilst there was progress being made, stability within the Council would enable further progress to be made.  The current arrangements would therefore remain in place until a recruitment process began in the new year which would tie in with the launch of the new Borough Plan.

There has been little sign of any recruitment process and it now looks as if there may be an argument that Christine Gilbert should stay on until after the General Election because of her role as Returning Officer.  The fact that her partner Tony McNulty is actively campaigning for a Labour victory in Brent is not seen as a conflict of interest.

Another issue is of course that around the Employment Tribunal case and the finding that Brent Council racially discriminated against a council worker, victimised her and constructively dismissed her. Christine Gilbert will not countenance any disciplinary move against Cara Davani who was the second respondent in the case. Cara Davani, head of Human Resources. Cara Davani drew up Christine Gilbert's contract when she replaced Gareth Daniel  as Acting CEO, that included payment into her private company Christine Gilbert Associates. At the time Davbani wa sbeing paid a daily fee of £700 into her private company.

It would be interesting to have an update from Cllr Michael Pavey, Deputy Leader, on his internal review of Human Resources policies and processes. Two issues came up during the debate about his review including whether workers would have confidence that there would be no retribution over what they said and whether they could communicate with councillors over their concerns.

In Item 13 (Constitutional Amendment) a new clause has been added:

So Councillors approached by workers with concerns about racial discrimination, victimisation or constructive dismissal have to report them to Cara Davani, Head of Human Resources, who was the second respondent in a case where Brent Council was found to have racially discriminated against an employee who was victimised and constructively dismissed.  Cara Davani will be managing the redundancies consequent on the latest round of cuts.

Cara Davani is of course leading on the senior management restructure which has seen packages agreed for Fiona Ledden (former head of Legal and Procurement) and Ben Spinks (former Assistant Chief Executive Officer who was only appointed in 2013).

I understand that there has been one slight change in Gilbert and Davani's proposals. The original consultation ring-fenced the post of a senior legal officer to replace Ledden. Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts,  was one of three employees thus eligible for the post. It was the only ring-fenced post in the whole reorganisation. Now the post will not be ring-fenced but only advertised internally. This seems to make little real difference in terms of who might be qualified for the post, so may just be a cosmetic change.

The Labour Group has its own internal tensions and a Labour councillor recently suggested to me that Muhammed Butt's support had declined to about 50% of the group against 75% a few weeks ago. It does not seem to be political opposition so much as distrust following recent machinations.


In the same week Pavey's Review will be put before the General Purposes Committee.

So if you have the staying power to watch the Council meeting on livestream tonight, just remember what is seething beneath the surface. Livestreaming failed last time but is supposed to have gone through an upgrade. To view from 7pm follow this LINK

Fiona Ledden has left Brent Council

I have had confirmation that Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council,  decided to take redundancy over Christmas and left the Council at the end of December 2014.

Ledden's post was recommended for deletion in the proposed restructuring of the senior management of Brent Council. A new post of Chief Legal Officer is proposed to be  ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Head of Human Resources, Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

Fiona Ledden was mentioned in the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal where Brent Council was the  first respondent and Cara Davani the second. The Judgment found that Rosemarie Clarke had been racially discrimination against, victimised and constructively dismissed.

Controversially Brent Council decided to appeal against the Judgment and last month a Judge at Employment Tribunal Appeals found that Brent Council had no grounds for appeal.

Deputy Leader of the Counci, Michael Pavey, has almost completed his internal review of Human Resources which has a remit limited to procedures and policies. It will be tabled at General Purposes Committee on January 29th.

Cara Davani continues in post.

This is an extract from the Employment Tribunal Judgment:

With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant,[Rosemarie Clarke] following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision

Information not so free at Brent Council when it comes to respecting the Constitution

Philip Grant has written to Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council, regarding her refusal of a resident's  Freedom of Information request  about the meeting Grant had with Muhammed Butt on 'Respecting Brent's Constitution'.

Philip Grant wrote:

Dear Ms Ledden,

I have just come across the attached document, a letter from you on behalf of Brent Council on 18 September 2014 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by a Mr Benazi, on the "What do they know" website.



The request concerns a copy of the notes of a meeting, which I prepared after I had met with Cllr. Muhammed Butt at the Civic Centre on 26 June 2014, notes which I wished to put in the public domain, but which I did not feel able to do for reasons explained in a "guest blog" which was posted on the "Wembley Matters" site in July 2014 LINK

I am writing to point out that the explanation you gave for not providing a copy of the notes to Mr Benazi was incorrect, for the following reasons:

The "information" (the notes) was held by Brent Council, in that Thomas Cattermole (Head of Executive and Member Services), who had been present at and taken part in the meeting, held a copy of them.

My meeting was not with Councillor Butt 'as a Councillor', but with him as Leader of Brent Council, to discuss matters involving the Council, its workings and the actions of Council Officers, and not any personal matter as a "constituent" (which I would have raised with one of my ward Councillors for Fryent Ward, if that had been the case).

The meeting took place at Councillor Butt's invitation, and not at my request.It was to discuss matters which I had raised in a letter to him (jointly with Cllrs Kansagra and Lorber) following a "Soapbox" I gave at a Brent Connects meeting in February 2014 on "Respecting Brent's Constitution", and which he had not yet dealt with. [You may remember that I sent you a copy of the letter, and of the text of my "Soapbox" on 13 February 2014, with an email headed 'Working together on Respecting Brent's Constitution', after you had confused that letter with another matter (a complaint I had made to Christine Gilbert about the actions of three senior Council Officers) in dealing with a request made to you by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.]

For these reasons, I can see no justification for dismissing Mr Benazi's request, as the information would have been within that which should be supplied by Brent Council under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that the Council will now, belatedly, comply with that FoI request. Best wishes,

Open Letter to Christine Gilbert on the Employment Tribunal case

Local resident Philip Grant, who has been following the Employment Tribunal case closely and engaged with council officers on the issue, has written the following Open Letter to Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council:

Surviving Christmas at Brent Council?

In the run up to the 'Season of Goodwill' things are looking distinctly frosty at Brent Council despite the Christmas tree recently erected at the Civic Centre.

Relationships between Labour councillors are a little fraught as Full Council becomes a testing ground, not just about the cuts envisaged in the First Budget Reading and a a likely motion on the Employment Tribunal appeal but also over the question of whether a court order on conditions of bail will allow Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala to attend. The ban on him entering the Civic Centre has been lifted after intervention from the courts and Labour Party region.

On the officer side the consultation on proposed cuts to the senior management team has produced some emotional scenes as it proceeds at a pace.  Fiona Ledden, whose post is proposed to be deleted, is not at work at the moment. Her automatic email message says she is away from November 28th, with no return date given. Ben Spinks' post as Assistant Chief Executive is also under threat.

However senior people will have some protection as deals are done. Not so rank and file council workers who face an unhappy Christmas contemplating the future as 4 out of 10 posts in the central departments are proposed to be cut.

It is sad to see things at such a low point as the year drags to an end.

Comments are now closed on this piece

Private Eye on Brent Council’s Case Again ?

Guest Blog by Audrey N. Stables

After the national expose of the Brent Council racism, discrimination and workplace bullying scandal in Private Eye’s last edition, Davani, Gilbert, Ledden, Potts and others named and shamed may well have thought they deserved a rest from the limelight.

However, it seems that Rotten Boroughs (Private Eye’s regular dodgy-local-authority section) is not the only page that  the Civic Centre chums will now want to flick straight to as they check their cuttings each fortnight. The cartoon below appears in the current edition of the Eye and, though it principally relates to similar scummy practice by some NHS managers, will surely resonate with Davani and Gilbert and Fiona Ledden (and, even more so, with some of their more honest, and therefore no-longer-employed, ex-colleagues). 

Miss Ledden takes over from Miss Marple as she investigates Lorber's leak

Fiona Ledden, currently under pressure from Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani as they take action on the senior management restructuring in the run up to the Christmas break, has in turn, attempted (or been instructed)  to put the heat on ex Liberal Democrat Council Leader, Paul Lorber.

Ledden has written to him about an investigation she is undertaking into information 'of a sensitive nature' which appeared in a letter from Paul Lorber published in the Brent and Kilburn Times on November 8th.

The letter was about the senior management restructuring which did not go to General Purposes Committee until November 5th.

Ledden said:

In the letter...you refer to the disbanding of the Environment department. This was confidential information  and staff in the department were not aware, no consultation documentation could be available until after the meeting of General Purposes Committee.

She went on to say:

I am very concerned that this information was available to you and I an writing formally to ask you who gave you that information.

Ledden went on to offer to have a meeting with Lorber 'if that would assist'.

Ledden does not cite any authority for making such a request of someone who is now a member of the public.

Lorber replied that he was sorry that she had been asked to waste her time on the matter and wrote:

I expect that the Labour Leader must have been furious at the disclosure of his secret hatchet plan. Secret even from his own Councillors and even the newly appointed Lead Member of Environment.

He went on to say that 'in the spirit of Open Government' he would be happy to answer the question:

I worked it out for myself from the headlines of the report. My many years on the Council and my intuition led me to guess which Department was for the chop and which Lead Member was the weakest and therefore least likely to cause a fuss.

Perhaps you would now reciprocate by forwarding a copy of the General Purposes Report so that it can be properly scrutinised and debated.

Ex Executive member Cllr George Crane was appointed successor to Cllr Keith Perrin on October 21st. Perrin had  the previous month resigned for 'personal reasons'. The appointment made by Muhammed Butt and not by ballot of the Labour Group was first announced on the Wembley Observer's  Get West London website.

Wembley Matters published the outline Agenda item for the General Purposes Committee on October 30th LINK and the anonymous officers' report on Saturday November 8th LINK  which identified plans to delete Fiona Ledden's post as Director of Legal and Procurement along with the post of Assistant Chief Executive which has only been created a year or so before.  Some information was still withheld as the Council claimed details about individual staff could be identified.

Brent Council denies restructuring information to ex-Leader - he issues formal Open Government complaint

As  readers will know Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani have proposed a restructuring of senior management of Brent Council  that some have seemed as part of a 'jobs for the boys and girls' strategy. Details can be found here: LINK

The details were to be discussed at the General Purposes Committee but no details were published on the Agenda. It was marked restricted as individuals could be identified before consultation began. One person who may be affected is Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement, as it was proposed that her post be deleted.

At the meeting the item was taken 'below the line' (confidential) and a backbench Labour councillor was none too happy at being excluded from the room.

Now the issue has been taken up by Paul Lorber, former leader of the Liberal Democrats and previously Leader of the Council.

He pressed the case for open government in an exchange with Fiona Ledden:

To: Ledden, Fiona
Cc: Gilbert, Christine Subject: GP Report on Restructuring etc

Fiona  

Can you please supply me with a copy of this Report as I believe that aspects of it should NOT have been kept secret .

Brent supports the concept if a Freedom Of Information and Reports dealing with the abolition of Departments and posts themselves have not in the past been treated as confidential.

Only matters which are confidential are issues specific to individual employees.

The normal practice in the past has been a Report above the line dealing with the general issues and only the specific staff related issues should be kept below the line .

Can you please explain who made the decision to restrict all the information to just the Members of the GP Committee and why were other Councillors excluded from Meeting and prevented from being present during consideration of the items.

How does any of this meet the acceptable Freedom of Information undertakings? Has there been a decision to raise the Secrecy threshold under the current Administration?

I would appreciate an early reply.
Thanks
 Paul

 Dear Paul,

The report was below the line and will always remain below the line I can not therefore provide you with a copy.

The consideration of whether the report should go below the line took into account the relevant information.

Kind regards

Fiona
Fiona Ledden 
Director of Legal and Procurement

 Fiona

Sorry but this is not an acceptable answer. What 'consideration' - absolute secrecy to hide what officers recommend even if breach of Open Government undertakings?

On what basis were Councillors expelled from the meeting of the GP and thus denied an opportunity to Scrutinise. Are you using GP Committee to by pass information and decision making of full Council or even the Cabinet?

This is clearly an abuse and not what was expected of the Cabinet and Scrutiny System. Perhaps you and your colleagues need to review both the legislation and Brent Council policy on Open Government and act accordingly.

Please advise how this decision can be scrutinised if access to the papers is denied to Councillors let alone the public.

Please treat my email as a formal Complaint against a refusal to provide me with information I am entitled to as a local resident and Council Tax payer.

Regards
Paul