Midday today deadline for addressing Brent's Full Council Meeting on September 8th

Brent Council sent out a tweet on Friday advertising the 5 minute slot at Full Council meetings where the public can address the Council:

Brent Council @Brent_Council  ·  Aug 29

Speak out to the whole council. Ask for a five-min slot (a deputation) @ full council. For 8 Sept email committee@brent.gov.uk by noon Mon.

The deputations are made under Standing Order 39:

Deputations

.    (a)  Deputations may be made by members of the public. Each deputation shall last not more than 5 minutes and there shall be a maximum of 3 deputations at any one council meeting on different subject matters. There shall be no more than one deputation made by the same person or organisation in a 6 month period and no repetition of the subject.

.    (b)  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.

.    (c)  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.

.    (d)  If more than three deputations are received a ballot will take place three days before the Council meeting to select the deputations to be presented before the Council.

Brent Labour in need of good political advice as spin doctor and organiser leave

Brent Labour Group is looking for a new Political Assistant following Richard Bell's departure. Richard Bell was the latest Political Assistant with a background in the Fabian Society. His predecessor Jack Stenner had been a Young Fabian. The two have published articles together LINK

If anyone out there fancies their chances (and there is an ex-councillor with time on his hands with very definite views on Brent Labour and democracy), I reproduce the application pack below:

Coincidentally (perhaps), Lee Skevington, Labour's borough organiser, has according to highly placed Labour sources, decided not to extend his contract. Skevington has been popular with rank and file Labour Party members.

The departures leave quite a gap ahead of the General Election in nine months time. However influential Jim Moher remains firmly in the driving seat of Dawn Butler's Brent Central  campaign following Labour's AGM.

Brent Labour's need for good political advice became clear this week when the 'poor doors' issue hit national as well as local headlines. This segregation of private and affordable home tenants in the same block was justified by Margaret McLennan, lead member for housing and regeneration, on the basis that separate access was required to keep the service charges of affordable tenants down, but attacked by former Council leader Ann John as 'utterly ridiculous and dreadful'. Pete Firmin, also a Labour Party member and chair of Brent Trades Council, as well as a committee member of a local residents' association, said, 'It is outrageous and basically saying we are the privileged, keep out of our area.'

This controversy follows the revelation that a one bedroomed flat in the Willesden Green Library development, advertised in Singapore as 'benefitting' from having no social or key worker homes, was selling at £450,000.

I have sympathy with McLennan's point on service charges but surely this goes back to the planning stages of mixed developments and their marketing, when the private service charges could be set to subsidise affordable housing service charges.

It is worth noting that Muhammed Butt has refrained from commenting to the Kilburn Times and has not responded to Twitter requests for his reaction.

Former Ann John supporter, James Powney, has continued to raise issues about democracy in Brent on his blog and the need for proper scrutiny. In a recent posting he was critical of the budget process by the current leadership LINK:

I fear that Brent Council is just going to float along without proper planning, until suddenly the money simply isn't there and panic cuts have to be implemented.  When that happens, councillors cease to exercise any sense of priorities and simply try to balance this year's books, until they go through an even more difficult exercise next year.

Not exactly a vote of confidence in his Labour colleagues.

Today  LINK  Powney commends the nine Labour councillors who called the £40 'Garden tax' in for scrutiny at Wednesday's Scrutiny Committee but contrasts the current changes with 'the thoroughness of the last major change in Brent's recycling arrangements four years ago'. He was, of course, lead member for the environment four years ago.

Elsewhere, on Twitter, James Powney has been involved in an exchange about the police investigation into fraudulent emails supporting the Kensal Rise Library development. Brent Council itself instigated the investigation with Muhammed Butt initially insisting that the issue should be thoroughly investigated. Lately the Council has granted planning permission and the council does not appear to be pursuing the matter. Powney, who still has the twitter handle @CllrPowney was accused of wanting to drop the investigation.

The police investigation is not the only unfinished business carried forward from the last administration.

The previous Labour adminstration extended Christine Gilbert's contract as Interim Chief Executive until after the May elections. Fiona Ledden's report advocating this at the time cited a smooth transition to the Civic Centre, managing the local elections, and safeguarding of Brent's reputation, as well as prevailing market conditions for LA CEs as reasons for keeping Gilbert on.

Now, three months after the election, Gilbert is still in post, with no sign of any recruitment process. She is currently on holiday and Andy Donald is standing in as Acting Interim Chief Executive.

Ledden's report (with Cara Davani of HR fame as the other contact officer) adopted by the then Brent Executive stated:

.

-->

Taking these factors into account and taking a strategic view in relation to the optimum time to commence the permanent recruitment process, it is proposed that recruitment for a permanent Chief Executive commences after the May 2014 elections and that the current interim arrangements continue until a permanent appointment has been made and the individual is in post. This approach is fully supported by the Executive.

Unfortunately this (deliberate?) lose wording seems open to an interpretation  that the appointment can be made any time after May 2014. May 2020 perhaps?

Lastly, no independent investigation has yet been set up into the modus operandi of Brent's HR department.

The call-in of the 'Garden Tax' proposal is a welcome sign that some Labour councillors are prepared to question Cabinet decisions. I would hope that Labour councillors, committed to equality in housing, transparency in recruitment procedures, and good labour relations with employees, will also take up some of these other issues.

.

New Brent Cabinet must lance this boil

Before the election the Brent Green Party called for an independent investigation into various controversial aspects of the running of Brent Council which had emerged in postings on Wembley Matters.

Brent Council refused to comment on these during the election period but now a new adminstration is in place it is time to launch an independent investigation so that a fresh start can be made which will win the confidence of Brent Council workers and residents.

These are the issues for investigation:

1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll (the allegation has been made that these are tax avoidance schemes)
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments (the allegation has been made that these are on more favourable terms and are less clearly defined than for ordinary Brent Council workers)
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis (the allegation has been made that colleagues who worked together at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council have formed a new group of senior officers at Brent Council. Further that an officer in a personal relationship with another officer had adjudicated on fraud allegations against her)
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department (aside from a current Employment Tribunal case allegations have been made by individuals of bullying and harrassment aimed at moving them out of their jobs)
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution

A further issue now that the election is out of the way is the appointment of a Chief Executive. Christine Gilbert's interim appointment was extended by the Brent Executive on the recommendation of Fiona Ledden until after the election.  The permanent position should now be publicy advertised with a transparent recruitment process.


LINKS: (Also see the comments on these posts)

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/eric-pickles-urged-to-investigate-brent.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/victimisation-bullying-racial-and.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/revisiting-christine-gilberts.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-not-commenting-on-tewari.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/eric-pickles-urged-to-investigate-brent.html

Scrutinising Brent's Scrutiny Proposals

A Wembley Matters reader has given the proposals on new scrutiny arrangements a little scrutiny and found them wanting. Fiona Ledden's proposal is that Brent should have just one Overview & Scrutiny Committee to replace the current five,

In her report Fiona Ledden writes:

“Five committees is a considerably higher number than most other London councils have following a random survey”

This is illogical. A random survey of how many London Boroughs? A higher number than most other London Boroughs we randomly surveyed? A higher number than most of the 32 London Boroughs? How many other London Boroughs are making do with one OSC? What sort of Boroughs are they that are doing that?

Here are 17 London boroughs. They all have more permanent OSC bodies than Brent is proposing,. All bar one has three or more OSCs and the only that comes close is Ealing, which has an OSC ansd a Standing Commitee on Health.

Southwark:

The overview & scrutiny committee (OSC) is the main co-ordinating scrutiny body.  It appoints three scrutiny sub-committees and is responsible for their overall management:

 ·  Education, Children’s Services and Leisure Scrutiny Sub-Committee

·  Health, Adult Social Care, Communities and Citizenship Scrutiny Sub-Committee

·  Housing, Environment, Transport and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee

Camden

Three of the scrutiny committees mirror the three service directorates, one covers health scrutiny and the fifth will look at corporate resources, performance and policy together with covering the central departments.

Committee membership

• Children schools and families
• Culture and environment
• Housing and adult social care
• Health
• Resources and corporate performance

Lambeth

Lambeth council has six scrutiny committees: the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which oversees and co-ordinates the work of the sub-committees and the scrutiny function in general; and five cross-cutting sub-committees, which cover issues arising from all our services.

Haringey

The Council has an overarching Overview and Scrutiny Committee which is made up of five non-Cabinet Councillors as well as statutory and non statutory co-optees. Councillors sitting on the Committee reflect the political balance of the Council.  The Committee is supported in its work by four standing scrutiny panels:

• Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel
• Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel
• Communities Scrutiny Panel
• Environment and Housing Scrutiny Panel

Scrutiny panels are made up of between 3 and 7 councillors who are not members of the Cabinet, are chaired by members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and membership is politically proportional.

Enfield

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee (OSC) coordinates the work of the 6 Scrutiny Panels. Made up of the 6 Chairmen and chaired by the Members and Democratic Services Group Chairman, OSC ensures that the Scrutiny function in Enfield operates smoothly, and organises references from the various panels.

Hounslow

Scrutiny panels

We have three scrutiny panels that oversee the service areas of council business. These are  coordinated by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

From time to time, we set up task and finish scrutiny panels to look into specific issues of concern to scrutiny members. These can be service areas or more general policy areas of relevance to the community. Each task and finish panel is set up just to look at one issue, then disbanded.

Select a panel below to get more information about meeting dates, agendas and reports.

Standing scrutiny panels  

Housing and environment scrutiny panel

Children and young people scrutiny panel

Health and adults care scrutiny panel

Ealing – one OSC but a standing panel on health

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is able to set up review panels to consider specific issues. The review panels have a fixed term and have to work to an agreed programme.

Standing panel

Health and Adults Social Services This panel is responsible for scrutinising health services in the borough, as well as the council’s provision of social services for adults. The panel recently considered proposed reforms of hospitals across North West London (the Shaping a Healthier Future programme) as well as the merger of Ealing Hospital Trust with North West London Hospitals Trust, and proposals for reforms to dementia services.

Hackney 

Overview and scrutiny board

Made up of the chairs and vice-chairs of the commissions, the overview and scrutiny board coordinates the function and runs special projects to scrutinise council performance.

Scrutiny commissions

Children and young people

We look at all services for children and young people, including those provided by the Hackney Learning Trust and social services.

Community safety and social inclusion

We review issues of crime and community safety. We also look at support for the voluntary sector, community cohesion and adult learning.

Governance and resources

We review the way the council operates, including how the budget is prepared and agreed.

Health in Hackney

We look at all health services, adult social care and services for older people.

Living in Hackney

We have a remit for all housing issues, as well as leisure and culture, planning, sustainability, waste and street cleanliness.

Barnet

At the London Borough of Barnet, there are four Overview and Scrutiny Committees, each with their own Terms of Reference, which sets out their responsibilities and power. These Committees are:  

Budget and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Safeguarding Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Islington

 Scrutiny in Islington

Reviewing decisions

The Policy and Performance Scrutiny Committee is the council’s main scrutiny committee.  It coordinates the work of the council's four scrutiny review committees and can play an important role in reviewing decisions made by the Executive. If five or more councillors request such a review, the committee can call in a decision made by the Executive before it is implemented and consider if the decision should be recommended back to the Executive for further consideration. If the Policy and Performance Scrutiny Committee considers that the Executive's decision does not follow the council's policy or budgetary framework, it can refer the decision to a meeting of full Council

Greenwich

• Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel
• Finance & Public Services Scrutiny Panel
• Healthier Communities & Older People Scrutiny Panel
• Overview and Scrutiny
• Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny Panel
• Social Inclusion Scrutiny Panel
• Sustainable Communities & Transport Scrutiny Panel

Merton

The structure of Overview and Scrutiny at Merton consists of three scrutiny panels and an Overview and Scrutiny Commission.

The three panels each have individual areas of responsibility whilst the Commission supports the panels, oversees the development and delivery of the annual work programme and co-ordinates cross-cutting reviews and responses.

Newham

Scrutiny arrangements differ from council to council. We have an overarching Overview and Scrutiny Committee and five scrutiny commissions:

• Overview and Scrutiny Committee
• Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission
• Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Commission
• Health and Social Care Scrutiny Commission
• Regeneration and Employment Scrutiny Commission

Richmond

Overview and Scrutiny Committees

We have four Overview and Scrutiny Committees, which meet at least six times a year:

• Education and Children’s Services
• Environment, Sustainability and Community
• Finance and Performance
• Health, Housing and Adult Services

Croydon

Three committees

	Health, Social Care and Housing Scrutiny Sub-Committee
	Scrutiny and Strategic Overview Committee
	Children and Young People Scrutiny Sub-Committee

Hammersmith & Fulham

The four Scrutiny Committees are: 

• Education and Children's Services Select Committee
• Transport, Environment and Residents Services Select Committee
• Housing, Health And Adult Social Care Select Committee
• Overview & Scrutiny Board

 Lewisham

Overview & Scrutiny

Public Accounts Select Committee

Health & Communities Select Committee

Sustainable Develoment Select Committee

Children and  Yoing Persons Select Committee

Housing Select Committee

Safter & Stronger Communities Select Committee

Brent Labour concentrates power in proposed constitutional changes

The Brent Council Executive will be replaced by a Cabinet of between three and ten members in constitutional changes going before Full Council on Wednesday 4th June. Report HERE

Along with other proposed changes the overall impact is greater centralisation of power in fewer hands. The changes enable Muhammed Butt to reduce the size of the new Cabinet compared with the previous Executive if he so wishes. There have been rumours that this may happen but other sources suggest that a reduction would leave a large number of potentially disruptive Labour councillors disgruntled by thwarted ambitions.

The new Labour group is meeting on Saturday to decide positions in the new adminstration.

Half of Cabinet Meetings will now take place during the day, alternating with evening meetings. At the same time the Council's five scrutiny committees will be reduced to one.

Deputations will now be allowed at meetings of Full Council, allocated a maximum of 15 minutes with a maximum of 5 minutes per speaker. The criteria for such delegations are limiting and leave a considerable amount of power with the officers:

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 [Fiona Ledden] shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

There shall be a maximum of 3 deputations at any one council meeting on different subject matters. There shall be no more than one deputation made by the same person or organisation in a six month period and no repetition of the subject.

Standing Order 40 for Full Council which allowed for debate on 'Key Issues affecting the borough' is deleted as 'it no longer serves a purpose'.

Standing Order 39 'Questions from the Opposition and Non-Executive Members' will be amended to provide that questions are given in writing 7 days in advance with no supplementary questions allowed. The number of questions will be amended 'to reflect the new political balance of the Council'.

Further it is proposed under Standing Order 45 that 'the number of motions and the debate in relating to motions be amended to reflect the new political balance of the Council.

Following the Labour landslide the membership of Council committees is revised with no Liberal Democrat representation:

General Purposes Labour 9 Conservative 1
Planning Labour 10 Conservative 1
Audit Labour 4 Conservative 1
Standards Labour 4 Conservative 1
Corporate Parenting Labour 4 Conservative 1

The Scrutiny Committee, now a single entity and clearly important in terms of holding the Council to account, will have 7 Labour and 1 Conservative member plus 4 voting co-opted members and 2 non-voting co-opted members. This gives the Labour members a voting majority.

Only Labour and Conservatives will qualify for the appointment of political assistants.

The Appendix below which contains tracked changes to the Constitution reveals the extent of the proposals:

Clean up tasks for the new Labour Brent Executive

As the new Labour group prepares to meet to decide the size, portfolios and membership of the new Executive, just a reminder of the issues that need to be addressed.

First there is the matter of the Human Resources management at the Council and associated issues of interim contracts and salaries paid into private companies.

The Green Party has called for an independent investigation of:

1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department 
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution

To which a reader has added:
6. Instances of council policies, procedures, standing orders, scheme of delegation etc being circumvented.

Secondly, there is the important issue of the appointment of Chief Executive.  Christine Gilbert's acting role was extended by the Brent Executive  until after the local elections on the recommendation of Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement. The report stated:

The recruitment process for a new permanent  Chief Executive should be delayed because the current recruitment process for  three other CEs in London boroughs would limit the quality of candidates, to allow the restructuring of council senior management to go ahead smoothly, and  to ensure continuity and reputation management over the move to the Civic Centre and the 2014 local elections. 

At the time Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, opposed the extension and raised the important issue of how the permanent appointment would be made.  Given the new overwhelmingly Labour composition of the council and the revelations about previous connections between members of the Corporate Management Team at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets, as well as personal relationship connections, a transparent recruitment process is essential.

Such a process would exclude from the recruitment process any officer with such connections and include opposition councillors as well as Labour backbenchers.

Thirdly, there is the task of ending all interim arrangements so that a permanent team with fully compliant contracts and paid through the council payroll are in place for the next four years. 

Christine Gilbert bans Labour activist from election count

Brent Labour Party activist and member of the anti-cuts umbrella group Brent Fightback, Michael Calderbank, has been banned from tonight's election count at Brent Civic Centre. Calderbank is a co-editor of Red Pepper magazine.

This is the letter sent to Calderbank by Fiona Ledden:

Dear Mr Calderbank

Christine Gilbert, Brent Council’s Returning Officer, has asked me to respond to you on her behalf following your request to attend tonight’s local election count.

As you will understand, it is important for us to ensure the integrity and security of the count and to make sure that there is no potential for disruption.

The Returning Officer needs to take into account any factors which could compromise the Count when agreeing attendance, including the previous behaviour of potential guests at Civic events.

Following the late request from yourself to attend tonight’s Count, and the behaviour you displayed within the Council chamber previously, disrupting a meeting of Brent’s Full Council, the Returning Officer has determined you are not permitted to enter Brent’s Civic Centre this evening.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Ledden 

Director of Legal and Procurement

Brent not commenting on Tewari allegations as Wembley Matters refuses to pull Audit Report

I understand that Brent Council is refusing to comment on the Davini allegations LINK as it would 'not be in the public interest'.

At the end of last week Fiona Ledden, head of Brent Legal and Procurement wrote 'requiring' me to take down the leaked documents. This is the correspondence:

Dear Mr Francis

I am most concerned that you have quoted on your website a number of documents that have been redacted and made available to a respondent in litigation, which is yet to be heard before a judicial panel. The documents are confidential and provided to the relevant party solely for an Employment Tribunal. The case has not yet commenced and releasing documents before the tribunal has started to hear the evidence is highly inappropriate.

I am requiring that you take down the documents which you have attached until the close of the proceedings.

I will be taking this matter up with the relevant party’s representative and during the hearing itself, I consider these documents to remain confidential until the tribunal lifts that confidentiality.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Ledden

Director of Legal and Procurement

London Borough Brent

Could you please tell me under what powers you are 'requiring that you take down the documents...'
Thank you
Martin Francis

Dear Mr Francis

My reasoning is that, except in certain circumstances that do not apply here, a party to whom a document has been disclosed in litigation may only use that document for the purposes of the proceedings in which they were disclosed. It is clear that these documents have been leaked from the court bundle, and therefore I request that you remove the attachments that you have placed on the blog.

Regards 

Fiona Ledden

Director of Legal and Procurement

London Borough Brent

It does not appear to me that you have any powers or authority to 'require' me to take down the attachments and I believe that the wider public interest is served by them remaining on Wembley Matters.
Regards,
Martin Francis

Over the weekend I edited the attachments so as to concentrate on the main issue, the Draft Audit Report, and that remains on the blog.

In my opinion this is a case of straightforward 'whistle blowing' backed up by the published document. We, the public, Brent taxpayers and council tax payers, have a right to know:

• How our money is spent
• How effectively the spending is monitored
• Whether employment practices are fair
• Whether all employees are treated equally regardless of their position in the authority
• Whether elected councillors have full knowledge of these matters
• What oversight councillors have over senior officer decisions on employment and disciplinary matters with the Corporate Management Team

Eric Pickles urged to investigate Brent Council over handling of fraud allegations

Ex-union activist Nan Tewari has written to Eric Pickles, Secretary of Stae for Communities and Local Government, raising a number of issues concerning the handling of allegations that Cara Davani, Brent's Director of Human Resources misused her Brent Council Oyster Card.  The letter is written at a time when Brent Council has dismissed 11 workers over alleged serious breaches of financial regulations and the staff code of conduct.LINK

In the long and detailed open letter Nan Tewari states:

Now after more than a year later [after the initial investigation of the Oyster card issue], it appears that there is only a draft internal audit report of the investigation in existence. Why was the report never finalised? Might it be because the treatment of Ms Davani has been unduly lenient in comparison with others and would therefore not stand up to scrutiny? The audit committee minutes of March 13 notes that it was highlighted that 18 cases of internal fraud were found, resulting in five dismissals and 10 resignations before action could be taken. Ms Davani presides over, and advises on these very disciplinary and dismissal cases and it is difficult to see how her position can remain tenable given what she has done. She is at the head of the council's workforce and as such must be an exemplar of the highest standards of behaviour expected of every person employed to work in the council or provide services to it.

The internal audit report, which is available below, was written about a period of considerable turmoil  in the Council and tensions in the relationship between officers and leading Labour politicians. Following Muhammed Butt's election to Labour and Brent Council leadership, in succession to Ann John,  disagreements developed between him and Gareth Daniel LINK , Chief Executive, which eventually led to Daniel leaving his post. Members. The CMT (Corporate Management Team, had written a letter in support of Daniel.  Fiona Ledden, now head of Legal and Procurement stepped in as Interim Chief Executive.

The audit report is heavily redacted but gives a picture of events. CMT is Corporate Management Team. XXXX indicates redaction.

A tale of two soap boxes at Brent Connects

Guest blog by Philp Grant

I was not able to be at the Wembley “Brent Connects” meeting on 26 March, but hope that the following “soapbox update” item which I sent in was read out:-

A “Wembley Lion”

At the Wembley “Brent Connects” forum in October 2013, I asked for the support of local people, councillors and Council Officers to get a lion head from the former Palace of Industry building put on permanent public display for the 90^th anniversary of the British Empire Exhibition. The meeting responded well to my “soapbox”, and I am pleased to let you know that Wembley will soon have its “Lion” again.

Volunteers from Wembley History Society and the Exhibition Study Group have worked together with Brent’s Regeneration, Heritage and Parks sections since last October. As a result of this, one of the lion head corbels will be placed on a concrete plinth at the new open space in Wembley Hill Road, opposite York House, by the end of next month. 

The plinth will have a plaque donated by Quintain, the Wembley Park developers who gave Brent three lion heads from the demolished building. It will also have a panel giving details about the history of the British Empire Exhibition in 1924/25. This Exhibition, which helped to put Wembley “on the map”, brought people together from across the world, to get to know each other better. 

I hope that today’s Wembley community, whatever their origins, will enjoy visiting this piece of our shared local history. From the end of April, please go and see it – take your families, take a picnic, and have your photograph taken with a “Wembley Lion”!

If you go between late April and 31 July, why not combine this with a visit to Brent’s BEE 90^th anniversary exhibition at the Civic Centre.

I also hope that everyone at this evening’s meeting will note from this example that good things can happen when the Council works together in co-operation with interested local people. Thank you.

I was good to be able to report back on this example of “Brent Connects” helping to provide a positive result. It is part of the consultation system set out in Brent Council’s Constitution, to encourage local people to get involved in the way decisions are made. This time it worked, but things are not looking so good over another “soapbox” I gave at the Kingsbury and Kenton “Brent Connects” in February 2014
(http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/respecting-brent-councils-constitution.html). When I received my invitation to the next meeting of this forum I had to reply as follows:

Thank you for your email, link to the minutes of the meeting on 4 February and copy of the agenda for the meeting on 9 April, which I certainly plan to attend.

Please note that there are some errors in the soapbox feedback section of the February notes on my item headed "Respecting Brent's Constitution":

Under "You Said" the text misses the main point of what I did say (see copy attached). I would suggest that this paragraph should be amended to:

‘Mr Grant quoted extracts on consultation from the council’s Constitution, and felt that the council was in breach of them. He gave one example of how staff at Museum and Archives had been restructured while consultation was in progress on a new Museum and Archives Strategy, which should have been completed before any restructuring. This was one of a number of examples of Brent's Officers ignoring what were supposed to be council commitments about consulting with the community. He said that he was writing jointly to the Council Leader and other party group leaders, asking them to work together to find a solution to this problem, so that everyone at Brent Council respected its commitments and worked together with local people for the benefit of the community.’

Under "We Said" it states: 'The Leader’s Office has responded to Mr Grant.'

It may be that the Leader's Office intends to respond to me before 9 April, but at the moment this should read: 'The Leader’s Office has not responded to Mr Grant.' I am copying this email to Councillor Butt, so that he can ensure that a response is sent in good time before the meeting.

In fact, the only written response I have received from any of the three party group leaders on the Council to the joint letter that I gave or sent to each of them was a copy of an email from Cllr. Paul Lorber to Fiona Ledden, Brent’s chief legal officer, on 12 February. He asked her to bring the matters I had raised about Brent Officers not respecting its Constitution to a meeting of the Council’s Constitutional Working Group, and to invite me to that meeting to explain my concerns in full.

Cllr. Lorber’s email was copied to Cllrs. Butt and Kansagra, but in the spirit of the group leaders working together which I had requested, it would have been better if he had asked them to support a joint approach to Brent’s Director of Legal and Procurement on this. As it was, she swiftly replied to the group leaders, with copy to me, that: ‘the Constitutional Working Group is not the venue for discussions with members of the public, or consideration of staff related issues, [and] I therefore feel unable to comply with the request.’

So there we have it, Brent has a Constitutional Working Group, but it is not allowed, by a Senior Council Officer, to consider alleged breaches of Brent’s Constitution by Senior Council Officers. It is certainly not allowed to hear what ordinary members of Brent’s public have to say about the Constitution, a document which includes the following commitment, quoted in my “soapbox” of 4 February:

‘The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication.’ (Article 10.1)

Philip Grant