Blood on the carpet at Brent Civic Centre as senior management jobs slashed-but what about the new jobs created?

I am now able to publish the details of the senior management restructuring that Brent Council are about to consult on. The proposals are aimed at cutting £1.4m from the Council's budget.

In addition to to the posts in red, above the Head of Sports and Parks, Libraries and Heritage and Partnership and Engagement are proposed to be deleted along with the Head of Business Intelligence.

Unusually there are no authors cited on the report (which is available below) but the process will be managed by Interim Chief Executive Christina Gilbert and Human Resources Director Cara Davani.

One high profile casualty could be Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement. Ben Spinks, Assistant Chief Executive, has only been in post a short time - since the last restructuring...

As well as the deletion of posts, new posts are to be created. Sharp-eyed insiders have pointed out that a new post of Chief Legal Officer has been ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

None of the other new posts have been ring-fenced. The two Operational Directors in Finance will have to compete for the remaining post.

The abolition of the Environment Department follows the privatisation of most of its service through the controversial  Veolia Public Realm contract.

Insiders suggest that a new job, Chief Operating Officer, at Hay 2 (the lower the number the higher the salary)will be extremely sought after - perhaps by Cara Davani herself.

Other jobs created are Operational Director (Strategic Commissioing), Head of Procurement, Operational Director (Community Services), Head of Performance and Programme Management, Chief Legal Officer (see above), Head of Partnerships and Transformation, Head of Culture, Head of Digital Services, Head of Brent Customer Services.

As readers will know one of the regular allegations made by Brent Council workers in comments on this blog  is that people are being eased out of their jobs by a variety of methods, often accompanied by gagging clauses, in order to make way for people who formerly worked at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council.

Some are asking if this is the most audacious move yet in that strategy.

Wembley Matters prints the Deputation on racism case that Brent Council banned

Mr Philip Grant was not allowed to make a deputation at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee on the subject of Brent Council's appeal on the Employment Trubinal case that found the Council guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

In a terse statement at the beginning of the meeting Cllr Aslam Choudry said that deputations would not be heard, indicating that there was more than one, and almost as an aside said it was not on the agenda. In fact Deputations (if any) were Item 2 on the Agenda.

In the interests of democracy, a concept not currently being upheld by the members and officers of Brent Council, I publish below what Philip Grant would hace said, if he had been allowed to:

-->

“Deputation” for Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November 2014

I am speaking as an individual Brent resident, but I hope that the many people who have raised this matter online, in letters to local newspapers and at recent “Brent Connects” meetings, will feel that I am expressing their concerns as well.

I am here to formally request that Scrutiny Committee will agree to urgently scrutinise the decision, made in the name of Brent Council around 26 September, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the case of Rosemarie Clarke v. London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani.

The Employment Tribunal found, on very clear evidence set out in its judgement, that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development had been constructively dismissed by the Council in 2013, and that she had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination.

Although a Council statement has said that it took independent legal advice before deciding to appeal, I believe that the decision is likely to be an unsafe one,
and not in the best interests of Brent Council or the people of the borough.
Briefly stated, my reasons for that belief are these:

1.   Brent has already victimised Rosemarie Clarke, through her treatment after she first complained of being bullied and harassed by Cara Davani in late 2012, then through the ordeal of an Employment Tribunal to prove that she had been constructively dismissed. In taking the case to appeal, rather than apologising, and compensating her for the harm she has suffered, Brent is continuing that victimisation.

2.   As I explained to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, as soon as the decision to appeal was made public, Brent does not need to appeal in order to “clear its name” of racial discrimination in this case. It simply needs to tell the truth about why Council Officers decided to carry on with disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee, and ensure that the Officers involved face the consequences of their actions.

3.   Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. They would also have had in mind a wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected. This probable conflict of interests makes the decision an unsafe one, and a possible abuse of their power and of the trust placed in them.

4.   The appeal will involve costs, perhaps considerable costs. If the legal action is being pursued in the interests of individual Senior Council Officers, rather than in the best interests of Brent Council, that is a misuse of Council Taxpayers’ money, at a time when “every penny counts”.

I am aware that you have been advised, by the Council’s Legal Director, Fiona Ledden, that this decision to appeal is not one which it is open to you to scrutinise, as it is an Officer decision not an Executive decision. As I have already indicated to you in writing, I believe that advice to be incorrect. Under your Committee’s terms of reference in Part 5 of Brent's Constitution, the functions which the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ include:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

You can scrutinise the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement, I have set out why you should scrutinise it, and I hope that you will agree to do so, as a matter of urgency. Thank you.

Philip Grant,

3 November 2014

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Philip Grant is doing democracy a service in Brent, as well as standing up for its residents, and deserves our support.

No scrutiny allowed of Employment Tribunal Appeal decision-Update

I tweeted Brent Council earlier today asking if tonight's Scrutiny Committee would be allowed to scrutinise the decision to appeal the Employment Tribunal case.

This is the Council response, and mine:

UPDATE

Philip Grant attended the meeting last night in order to make a deputation on the subject of the Council decision to appeal the decision of the Employment Tribunal in which the Council was found guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

At the beginning of the meeting, which had an unusually large number of Labour councillors in the audience. the Chair, Cllr Choudry, announced that there would be no deputations and added 'it is not on the agenda'. He gave no further explanation.

In fact Deputations are on the Agenda (Item 2) and Mr Grant had given sufficient notice.

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden,Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

Later today I hope to publish what Philip Grant would have said if he had been allowed to speak.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Will Brent’s decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement be scrutinised? (… or will the attempted cover-up continue?)

This Guest Blog by Philip Grant raises further questions over the lack of scrutiny in Brent as well as the power waged by members of the Corporate Management Team.

-->

Most readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of the Employment Tribunal decision against Brent Council and its Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani. On 4 September, the Tribunal found that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed by the Council, and had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination at its hands. 

Given these findings, and the strong evidence set out in the detailed judgement to back them up, any reasonable person would think that the Council should be quick to apologise to Rosemarie for the harm done to her by Cara Davani, and by the other officers, up to and including its interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, who the Tribunal found had failed to protect her from this victimisation, as its procedures required that they should. However, on 26 September the Council issued a statement, saying among other things:

‘Following independent legal advice, we have decided to appeal as there appear to be legal errors in the Tribunal’s reasoning, in particular on the direct race discrimination and victimisation aspects of the judgement.’

I wrote straight away to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt to remind him that any appeal against the tribunal's decision could only be made on points of law. The facts found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, could not be overturned by an appeal. The racial discrimination finding turned on whether Brent could show a valid reason why their treatment of Ms Clarke, by continuing action against her for alleged misconduct after she had ceased to be an employee of the Council, was different from that of a white male employee in the same situation. Brent completely failed to do that, which was why the tribunal was correct in law on that point.

I drew Cllr. Butt’s attention to paragraph 240 of the tribunal judgement, which recorded Brent’s (scarcely credible) evidence on who had made the crucial decision which led to the racial discrimination finding:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms 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.’

The tribunal also recorded that, despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer, Fiona Ledden, had chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie Clarke “guilty” of gross misconduct in her absence. I put it to the Council Leader that Brent did not need to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in order to clear its name of the finding of racial discrimination. It simply needed to tell the truth over the real reason why that decision to continue disciplinary proceedings was taken, and ensure that the Council Officers who had mistreated Rosemarie, and had tried to cover-up this wrongdoing at the tribunal, faced the consequences of their actions. 

I have not received any reply from Cllr. Butt on this matter. As it appeared that he was not prepared to take any action to stop the Council’s appeal from going ahead, I wrote to the Chairman of Brent Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, with copies to the other committee members, on 8 October, asking that committee to consider urgently scrutinising the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement. I set out the main facts and findings of the judgement, and gave my reasons why I believed ‘that the decision has not been made in the best interests of Brent Council, but in the interests of certain Council Officers who wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected.’

The Council statement on 26 September had only said ‘we have decided to appeal’, and in order to establish who exactly had taken that decision, and on whose advice, I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on 30 September. The response I received to this, from an interim Senior Employment lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, was: ‘In our opinion all of the information and documents requested are covered by legal privilege.’ I challenged this ruling, as it is ridiculous to claim that the identity of the person who decided to appeal is covered by ‘legal privilege’. The matter is now the subject of an Internal Review, with a decision due to be given, by another lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, in November.

Although two members of Brent’s Scrutiny Committee acknowledged receipt of my email of 8 October straight away, Cllr. Choudry did not reply until 22 October, and then only to say that he was seeking further information from Cllr. Pavey, and seeking a meeting with Cllr. Butt to discuss the matter, and that he hoped to respond to the request to scrutinise the appeal decision by the end of the week. When he had not replied, I wrote to ask him to list my request on the agenda for the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November. That agenda was posted on the Council’s website soon afterwards, without this item on it. On 25 October I wrote again to Cllr. Choudry, with copies to other members of the Scrutiny Committee, asking that one of them should give notice to the designated Council officer that they wished to add ‘a request received from a member of the public to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against a recent Employment Tribunal judgement’ as any item of ‘any other urgent business’ on the agenda for their meeting on 3 November.

Cllr.Choudry replied on Monday 27 October, saying that he had carefully noted my comments, and:

‘I have also taken advice from Council Solicitors - Fiona Leddon and, she has advised me with following response: 

"Dear Councillor , Further to our discussion earlier today I can confirm as I stated to you that the function of call in to support scrutiny is in relation to Executive decisions. The Executive function is taken by the Cabinet, the decision in relation to an appeal of an Employment Tribunal case is Not a member but an Officer decision." ’

As a result of this advice, Cllr. Choudry said that he would not be putting this matter on the Scrutiny Committee’s agenda. I replied later that day, saying:

‘In normal circumstances, I would accept the view that you have set out, but these are exceptional circumstances, and I would ask you to reconsider this matter for two very good reasons:

1.     I believe that the advice you have been given by Ms Ledden, as quoted to me in your email, is incorrect.

2.     Ms Ledden has a conflict of interests in this matter, as she is likely to have made, or to have been involved in advising on, the decision which I have requested should be scrutinised by your Committee, and she may well have personal reasons for wishing the Employment Tribunal decision to be kept "sub judice" as a result of the appeal against it.’

Although Ms Ledden’s advice did not say outright that Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet, and cannot scrutinise decisions made by Council Officers, it gave that impression very strongly. I was able to show, by reference to Brent's Constitution, that among the functions that the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ (under its terms of reference at Part 5) are:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

I have given notice under Standing Order 69 that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November about my request that they should urgently scrutinise Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement. I have also again asked Cllr. Choudry, or any other member of the Scrutiny Committee, to give notice under Standing Order 64 that my request should be treated as ‘any other urgent business’ at that meeting, which can be done at any time prior to the commencement of the meeting on Monday. 

I will attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting (Monday 3 November at 7pm, at Brent Civic Centre) ready to speak, but I have yet to hear back from Cllr. Choudry whether I will be allowed to do so. I believe that the decision, in the name of Brent Council, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case is a bad decision, and that it should be properly scrutinised, particularly as it is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, and culpable in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. If anyone else who feels the same is able to attend, I would welcome their moral support, although it is uncertain whether my views, and theirs, will get a hearing.

Philip Grant

Gilbert and Davani now being paid through Brent Council payroll

Cara Davani with Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council

Late yesterday I received an answer to my request to Brent Council asking if Christine Gilbert (Interim Chief Executive) and Cara Davani (Head of Human Resources) were being paid through Brent Council payroll.

There had been controversey because both had originally had their earnings paid into their private companies.

Fiona Alderman (Principal Lawyer), deputising for Fiona Ledden  (Directior of Legal and Procurement) said that both were on the Brent Council payroll.

Breeding at the top of Brent Council

The tangle of previous employment, business and personal relationships among the top management of Brent Council is rapidly becoming a talking point in the Civic Centre.

The case of Cara Davani, Head of Human Resources and Andy Potts, Principal Employment and Education Lawyer in the Legal and Procurement Department is particularly colourful.  Fiona Ledden heads up Legal and Procurement.

Cara Davani has recently announced that Andy Potts has become a partner in Kebulak her dog breeding business. LINK

Terrier World LINK congratulated the breeders by posting a picture of their twins who were born in June. (scxroll down)

The name of one of the twins is purely coincidental. (I hope)

Brent's Corporate Management Team - looking after each other

Brent Green Party and Brent Trades Union Council in their calls for an independent investigation into Brent Council have included an investigation into previous business and employment relationships of senior officers.

Christine Gilbert is an ex-Chief Executive of Tower Hamlets Counci and ex-chief of Ofsted. She became Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council following the row between Muhammed Butt (who had ousted former leader Ann John) and the then Chief Executive Gareth Daniel.

Daniel evetually left with a payment of £200,702.

In the course of the row three members of Brent's Corporate Management Team had written in Daniel's defence.

Clive Heaphy,  Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council, formerly Interim Director of Finance at Ofsted  employed Cara Davani on a £700 a day contract as Interim Head of HR. She was previously Director of Human Resources at Tower Hamlets Council and had worked as a consultant for Ofsted

Cara Davani was originally contracted with Brent Council by Heaphy, and her fees paid through Cara Davani Ltd., although the Brent Audit investigation found no written contract existed. Davani's initial engagement was from March 2012 to 31st October 2012.

Cara Davani drew up Christine Gilbert's contract which included payment into her private companty Christine Gilbert Associates in September 2012. She earned £100,000 in six months and later took up an additional job in Haringey. LINK

Clive Heaphy who had been suspended in August 2012 as Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council on grounds, later withdrawn, of gross misconduct, left the Council shortly after Daniel's departure and the day before Christine Gilbert's appointment as Acting Chief Executive. She took up the post officially on November 5th 2012.

Heaphy left with a payment of £140,508.

Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement, wrote the report that recommended to the Council that Christine Gilbert continue as Interim Chief Executive until after the 2014 local elections.

Fiona Ledden prevented me from speaking to Brent Council on the issue of the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. Correspondence about whether she was correct in that decision continues.

Christine Gilbert will continue as Interim Chief Executive during the Autum and Spring according to Muhammed Butt so that she can work on the new Borough Plan.

A  recruitment process for a permananent Chief Executive will begin in 2015.

Did Senior Brent Council officers allow Cara Davani to continue her victimisation of council worker?

With Philip Grant's permission, I am re-posting comments which he has made on the Kilburn Times website, in response to Brent's decision to appeal against the employment tribunal judgement. LINK

Comments made by Philip Grant in response to the online Brent & Kilburn Times story about Brent’s appeal against the employment tribunal appeal decision:

1.  I agree that Brent Council should not be appealing against the Employment Tribunal judgement. An appeal can only be taken on points of law, and cannot overturn the tribunal’s findings of fact, unless no reasonable person could have made those findings on the basis of the evidence before them. The tribunal had very clear evidence, which it set out fully in the judgement, to show that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani, as a direct result of having made a formal complaint about being bullied by her, and that other senior officers in the Council did not do what they should have done to protect Rosemarie from that bullying and victimisation. 

Even if Brent was to win an appeal, on some legal technicality, against being found guilty of “racial discrimination” as an aggravating feature in its victimisation of a former employee (who for years had played a key part in raising Brent’s status as an “Investor in People”), that victimisation remains a proven fact. By appealing against the tribunal judgement, rather than taking Ms Davani’s actions of ‘victimisation, harassment or bullying extremely seriously’ as it claims it does with all such allegations in its statement, Brent Council is continuing its victimisation of Rosemarie Clarke. 

The Council thinks that its deep pockets will allow it to pay the fees of top barristers to present its appeal, and make no mistake, we are talking of fees and costs well into six figures here. But the money in those ‘deep pockets’ is your money and mine, from Council Tax and Income Tax, every pound of which is needed to provide services for people in Brent. It should certainly not be spent on trying to cover up the actions and protect the reputation of Brent’s Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani.

2. This may seem strange, coming from someone who has criticised Brent’s handling of the Rosemarie Clarke employment tribunal case, but it is possible that her victimisation by senior Brent Council officers was not a result of racial discrimination. If that is the case, why does the tribunal judgement, at para.313, say: ‘The tribunal finds that the claimant has suffered discrimination on the protected characteristic of race, victimisation and was constructively dismissed’?

Evidence showed that a senior white male employee, who had been suspended by Brent for alleged gross misconduct in 2012, had the disciplinary proceedings against him dropped after he resigned. Rosemarie, a black female employee, had resigned in April 2013 after being suspended by Brent at the end of February, but the Council carried on with the disciplinary proceedings, finding her guilty (in her absence, and after she had left their employment) of gross misconduct on 31 July 2013. As it had been proved to the tribunal that there was a distinction between the Brent’s treatment of the two comparable cases, it was then up to the Council to show a valid reason for the difference.

Brent could not show a valid reason for the difference. Brent gave ‘an account as to why disciplinary action was not pursued against Mr H after his resignation, being as to his professional relationship with [an] accountancy body, having implications on his ability to work in the future’. The tribunal said that ‘this does not account for the reason why action was continued against [Ms Clarke] so as to offer an explanation showing that race was not in issue, the continuation and conclusion of disciplinary action having similar employment consequences for both parties.’ In these circumstances, the tribunal found that Rosemarie ‘was less favourably treated because of her race …’ to be ‘… proved on the failure of [Brent Council] to show that race was not a consideration.’ (Paras. 249 and 250 of the judgement). 

Brent Council has been “found guilty” of racial discrimination in this case, and wants to clear its name. If race did not play a part in the decision to continue disciplinary action against Rosemarie Clarke after she had resigned, what was the reason for the decision, and who made it? Here is what the tribunal judgement says at para. 240:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant, 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.’

The tribunal clearly found the evidence reported here scarcely credible, as any reasonable person would. Despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie “guilty” of gross misconduct. What was the “misconduct” which she had been suspended for? The letter to her on 26 February 2013, supposedly written by the Director of her department, but emailed to her by Cara Davani, said: ‘It has been alleged that you maybe liable for gross misconduct in respect of your failure to follow reasonable management instructions.’ The ‘instructions’ had been given by Ms Davani, who Ms Clarke had lodged a formal complaint against for bullying, and the tribunal found that they had not been ‘reasonable’.

So, what was the reason why Brent Council victimised Rosemarie Clarke? I don’t know Ms Clarke, and was not involved in any of what happened at the Council over this matter at the time, but based on the very detailed evidence set out in the Employment Tribunal judgement this is my opinion. 

·      The primary reason appears to be the personal animosity of Cara Davani, after Rosemarie Clarke had the courage to complain in December 2012 about the bullying and harassment she felt she was receiving from her line manager. 

·      Rather than protecting Rosemarie in this situation, as Brent’s HR procedures set out that they should, other Senior Officers at the Council (up to, and including, the Chief Executive) did not follow those procedures, and allowed Cara Davani to continue her victimisation.

·      When, in June 2013, Rosemarie made a claim against Brent Council to the Employment Tribunal, Ms Davani and the other officers involved (probably including Brent’s Senior Employment Lawyer, who, it appears, is also Ms Davani’s partner) were determined to do all they could to undermine that claim.

·      One way they saw of doing this was to carry on with the “gross misconduct” proceedings, even after Rosemarie had left Brent’s employment, so that they could claim that she would have been sacked, even if she had not resigned.

·      Alternatively, or in addition to this, the continuation of the disciplinary action was a result of Ms Davani’s personal wish to do as much damage as possible to Rosemarie’s future employment prospects, by ensuring that any “reference” she was given by Brent would say that she had been found guilty of gross misconduct during her employment with the Council.

If I am right, then Brent Council would do better to admit the real reason, and make clear that it was not guilty of racial discrimination by taking strong and appropriate action against the Senior Officers who were responsible for Rosemarie’s victimisation, and by ensuring that Rosemarie is properly compensated for the harm she has suffered at the hands of those Officers.

Brent Council: 'Key financials' for Gilbert and Davani private companies

The use of private companies by local authorities to pay senior staff has been a sourc eof considerable controversy within the Labour Party nationally.

In Brent the revelation that Christine Gilbert, Acting Chief Executive,  had her salary paid into her private company was the subject of debate in a full Council meeting. Her current salary is listed as £187,044 with more for additional duties as Returning Officer during elections. LINK

  Her company website, http://www.cgilbertassociates.com/ is currently unavailable.

These are the latest figures I could find on her company. It is due to report again in 2015.

Cara Davani also has her own Human Resources company but her website www.caradavani.com  is also unavailable.

She was paid £700 per day by Brent Council when she started as Acting Director of Human Resources

She is also an associate (but not a director) of the HR Lounge whose website IS available:http://thehrlounge.co.uk/cara-davani


Below you can find the key financial data from Cara Davani Limited which is due to report again in two months time.

 Both companies are exempt from audit due to their small size.

HR Lounge key financial data:

Fiona Ledden, Brent Chief Legal Officer and Head of Procurement and Democratic Services, has no website available but a Fiona Margarent Ledden is listed as Company Secretary and Director of Ledden Associates Ltd, registred at 4 Belmont Road, Wallington, Surrey which was dissolved in 2009. She is also listed as Director and Company Secretary of Sutton Regeneration Partenership  Ltd dissolved in 2003 and as a Director of Potters Field Management Trust, dissolved 2009. She has no current active directorships.

Anger mounts over Employment Tribunal findings against Brent Council

Cara Davani

Brent Council workers and residents have reacted angrily to the Employment Tribunal findings of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal against Brent Council and Cara Davani, Operational Director of Brent Human Resources.

Many commenting on this blog have called for sackings as a consequence of the findings. Others have raised the question of the cost of an appeal if Brent Council goes ahead with one and who should pay for it.  There is also the question of who decides on whether to mount an appeal - officers or the political leadership?

I have had to edit or delete some of the comments such are the strong feelings aroused by the case. I am at a conference today but will try and keep up with comments during the day.

Brent Council 'disappointed and surprised' by findings that their employee was racially discriminated against, victimised and constructively dismissed

Following my story below LINK on the findings of the Employment Tribunals in the case of Rosemary Clarke vs the London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani, Brent Council has issued the following statement:

The council has robust, up-to-date policies around equalities, whistleblowing, bullying and harassment and we take these issues extremely seriously.

We are committed to equal and fair treatment for all our staff who are from a hugely diverse range of backgrounds and represent the diversity of our unique borough.

We are disappointed and surprised by the findings in this case and are currently seeking legal advice. Therefore we are not able to comment on the case any further at this stage.

Brent, the 'Listening Council', refuses to let me speak but answers an unasked question

Just to keep readers up to date on Brent Council's refusal to let me speak as a deputation last night.

Seconds before the meeting Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council,  came over and took me aside to say he couldn't allow me to speak but he would address my 'question' in his report to the Council.

I had never asked a question but had requested a deputation:

I would like to speak to Full Council on September 8th on the subject of the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.

There's a touch of Alice In Wonderland here when you are not allowed to speak but the Council decides what question is implied by your request to speak, and then proceeds to answer it.

In fact I would have spoken about the background to Christine Gilbert's Acting Chief executive position and sought assurances about the transparency of the appointments process and the involvement of parties other than Brent Officers and Brent Cabinet members  in that process.

In his report Muhammed Butt gave the statement that I reported here yesterday evening.

I have received no written reply to my non-question from Fiona Ledden or Muhammed Butt although other correspodents have been told that this would be done. The only correspondence has been Fiona Ledden's attempting to justify my not being allowed to speak.

In response to Councillor John Warren (Brondesbury Conservatives) who asked about my delegation being refused she said: 'The matter has been dealt with by correspondence between myself and Mr Francis'.

The implication appeared to be that the issue was closed. 

I received this from Fiona Ledden on September 5th while I was away at the Green Party Conference in Birmingham:

Dear Mr Francis

Thank you for your response.

I note your comments in relation to the tweet, I will ensure in future that the tweet alerts go out at least 2 weeks before a relevant council meeting I am sorry that did not occur on this occasion.

In relation to the calculation of working days within the definition section of the constitution it confirms that days mean full clear working days which would mean that the deputations need to be received on the Friday before Council on the following Monday.

I confirm again the leader will write answering the question that you have raised

Yours etc

FL

Following the Council Meeting I replied this morning:

 Dear Ms Ledden,

I would like to put on record that I am not satisfied with this response as Brent Council, on its official Twitter feed,  quite clearly gave a deadline of September 1st.  As no other deadline was readily available to the public and deputations were on the agenda for the meeting commonsense, natural justice and the public interest should have resulted in a decision to let me speak.

I do not accept, as you implied in answer to Cllr John Warren’s question at Full Council, that our correspondence on this matter concludes the matter.

I am now considering how to take this further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):

Thank you for your letter informing me that I cannot have a deputation to Full Council because my email was sent on Monday September 1st and the deadline was Friday August 29th.

I sent my email in response to a Tweet from Brent Council which quite clearly stated that the deadline was Noon on Monday September 1st. The Tweet was sent out by the Council on August 29th.

I therefore repeat my request to speak to full Council on the issue of appointing a Permanent Chief Executive.

I received the following letter  from Fiona Ledden in response:

Thank you for your email in response to my letter. 

Please accept our apologies for the confusion. The Tweet you refer to was published in error and this is something I shall follow up. 

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

As stated in my original response to your email, you will receive a written response to your question in due course.

Brent Council has about 8,000 followers, some of whom will have retweeted the notice, so that is some error!

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

Undaunted I replied again this morning:

Dear Ms Ledden,

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

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

I therefore ask you to reconsider my request to speak as a delegation to the Full Council on September 8th on the issue of appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.

 You may not be surprised to learn that I have had no reply.  

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

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

Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

So if I complain the issue will get caught up in the complaints procedure and therefore cannot be raised by me or anyone else.  If I make a fuss then it could be labelled vexatious. And if I suggest that perhaps something is being hidden or avoided, or someone being protected, then that could be defamatory.

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

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

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