Brent revises process for dismissal of Chief Excutive & other senior officers

Cabinet will be asked to adopt new procedures and changes in standing orders at their meeting on June 22nd regarding the dismissal of senior staff, including the Chief Executive.  Other staff to whom it applies are the Chief Finance Officer and the Monitoring Officer.

In 2012 the then Brent Director of Finance, Chris Heaphy, was suspended over gross misconduct allegations( later withdrawn) shortly after Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel was ousted by Muhammed Butt. LINK

The proposal institutes a Dismissal Advisory Committee which includes'independent persons':

The Council will be required to invite independent persons to form part of a panel in the following priority order:

·      an independent person who has been appointed by the Council and who is registered as a local government elector in the borough of Brent;

·      any other independent person who has been appointed by the Council;

and

·      an independent person who has been appointed by another council or

other councils.

The Council has appointed one independent person to deal with Member Code of Conduct complaints but the 2015 Regulations explicitly allow theCouncil to utilise independent persons appointed by other councils.

This is why it is proposed that the Chief Operating Officer be authorised to explore the possibility of sharing independent persons appointed by other councils with a view to establishing a pool of 5 independent persons from which 3 can be selected to form a panel

Such a shared system may be a more cost effective and efficient use of a limited number of independent persons.

The Chief Operating Officer, who wrote the report, is Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets.

Apart from concerns that might arise from the above, there is an Alice in Wonderland feel about the flow chart.

In the top half of the chart you will see that action (or a decision not to act) is in the hands of the General Purposes Committee. The GPC consists of 7 Labour Cabinet Members and one Conservative opposition member.

In the bottom half you can see that the GPC notifies the Cabinet. In effect this is the 7 Cabinet members plus one Tory notifying 8 Cabinet members (Cllr Mashari is added to the 7).

They then have a kind of internal debate with themselves where they might object as Cabinet and reconsider as GPC, before the Dismissal Advisory Panel comes into play...

The Council will be asked to formally approve the appointment of Carolyn Downs as Chief Executive and Head of Paid Services with effect from September 7th 2015 LINK

Pavey Review won't address the real issues at Brent Council

On Tuesday Brent Council issued a statement expanding on the Pavey Review of Human Resources at Brent Council following the Employment Tribunal.  I reproduce it below for your information.

I am afraid that the review completely fails to recognise and address the seriousness of the allegations about the conduct of HR in Brent Council and the evidence in the Employment Tribunal papers. It does not encompass the wider problem of apparent collusion by senior council officers in that conduct.

The Pavey Review is unsatisfactory because:

1. It will be conducted while staff remain in fear of victimisation and bullying and their eventual loss of job as a result of revealing what is going on inside the Council. At the very least the senior staff concerned should be suspended (a neutral act) while the review takes place. The emails and phone calls I have had from Brent staff as a result of Wembley Matters' coverage of the issue leave me in no doubt that current staff will need a lot of persuading to speak openly. There is also the question of staff who have left and the gagging clauses imposed by HR as well as HR's ban on staff (on pain of dismissal) speaking to elected councillors about employment issues.

2. Michael Pavey is very close to Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council.  Cllr Butt has been alleged to be the 'prisoner' of members of the Corporate Management Team as a result of the machinations that took place over the sacking and replacement of previous Chief Executive Gareth Daniel.  Pavey has said he sees his role in the Council as backing Muhammed Butt's leadership and has excelled at this since his appointment in the role. It is doubtful whether he will produce any findings that are critical of Butt's leadership.

3. Michael Pavey as well as being Deputy Leader is lead member responsible for  Council as Employer, Legal Service, Complaints and Equalities. At least three of those areas of which he is in charge are those that have failed to some extent according to the Employment Tribunal and its accompanying evidence.  In effect Pavey will be investigating the effectiveness of his own oversight of these departments.

4. The last sentence of the Council statement appears to preempt the outcome of the investigation by assuming that the result will be in the form of 'individual action plans'. If the problem is systemic then there has to be action at that level.

In the light of the above the appointment of an independent investigator, acceptable to both sides, is still the only viable option if the aim is to get to the root of the problem.

BRENT COUNCIL STATEMENT

A review of Brent Council's HR and equalities practice and procedures is set to be spearheaded by Councillor Michael Pavey, Deputy Leader of the Council, in light of the recent employment tribunal.
The review aims to identify where improvements can be made and ensure that appropriate action plans are developed and delivered. The review will include a comprehensive survey of all HR and equalities policies and procedures and will ensure that a diverse range of views and perspectives are considered.

Advice from external experts will be sought and the review will look to learn from best practice at other local authorities.

Councillor Pavey says: “The diverse nature of Brent Council’s workforce is one of our core strengths and, importantly, is reflective of the diversity of local people. Therefore, it is vital that we shine a light on our existing policies and procedures to ensure that we constantly strive for best practice to support people of all backgrounds to achieve their full potential.

“I am committed to leading a full and detailed review to determine where improvements can be made. I will be working closely with colleagues inside the council and external experts to achieve this and will ensure there is involvement from members of the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities throughout the process.”

The first draft of the report is scheduled for December 2014, with a commitment to the delivery and implementation of individual action plans in January 2015.

Diminishing democracy in Brent - an update

At the time of the local elections the Brent Green Party called for an independent investigation into the following issues in Brent Council:

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 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.

No independent investigation has been launched by the new Labour administration and no open recruitment process has started for a permanent Chief Executive.

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.

Brent Council decides bins more important than human rights

Labour Brent Council's Executive last night approved the awarding of the £142.3m Public Realm contract to Veolia despite representations calling for the company to be removed from the procurement process because if its alleged grave misconduct in servicing illegal Israel settlements in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

 The Executive was addressed by Dan Judelson of Brent Jews for Justice for Palestinians,  Cllr Paul Lorber, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the council, and myself.

Executive members argued, to varying degrees, that they cared about human rights and the plight of the Palestinians, but that they had no option, for legal reasons and to get the best deal for Brent council tax payers, to award the contract to Veolia. Cllr Jim Moher, rolled out on these occasions as the Executive's blunderbus, accused me and Paul Lorber of attempting to wreck the contract with an eye on gaining electoral advantage next year. He said that people like us, trying to occupy the high moral ground, may be concerned about human rights but the man in the street cared about his bins being emptied. Muhammed Butt summing up said there was no greater advocate than him of the Palestinian cause but that the Council had to act legally and could not risk Veolia taking legal action against them for not following procedures. He added that faced with huge cuts in central government funding the savings the new contract involved was the most important issue.

Fiona Ledden, answering a challenge about lack of transparency in not informing  the campaign and the public of the legal advice she had received regarding  Bin Veolia in Brent's allegation said that she was constrained because it would be irresponsible to share legal advice with the public as it was privileged. It had been shared with members of the Executive behind closed doors. If the advice had been made public it could have been used by other parties in a Judicial Review. She said that she had received clear legal advice that Veolia UK was a separate company from that operating in Israel/Palestine and that in her communications with other local authorities she could find no case of Veolia being excluded from a contract.

This is the speech I made to the Executive:
 

When Muhammed Butt took over from Ann John as council leader he recognised, in the light of the library closures issue, the need to communicate with residents better and engage with them –

        

                                         be a ‘listening council’

Following his disagreement with Gareth Daniel  (former Chief Executive) he recognised the need to rebalance the power relationship between officers and elected members

                                   he wanted to move from ‘managerialism’ to              

                                        political leadership.

The public realm contract issue leads us to ask:

                                what happened to these intentions?

Veolia’s activities in the occupied territories of Israel are a moral and human rights issue, as well as a ‘political one’ just as British companies’ collusion with the Apartheid regime in South Africa was for the Brent Labour administration in the 1980s.

But from the beginning we were handed over to officers to discuss the issue – not elected members.

These officers were about as transparent as a lump of lead.

We gave officers detailed legal evidence on Veolia’s grave misconduct in the occupied territories – the procurement panel decided there were no grounds for exclusion of Veolia but gave no reasons why or how they had reached that decision.

We and our human rights lawyer met Fiona Ledden (Head of Procurement) to ask what legal advice they had received so that we could respond – they refused to tell us what the advice was and its source. We were put in the Kafkaesque situation of attempting to respond to evidence we couldn’t see. Our lawyer warned Fiona Ledden that this refusal could be used to press for a judicial review.

We asked if our allegations had been put to Veolia, they said no.

Surely any fair process would do that and should have in terms of protecting the council’s reputation.

When Veolia did write to the council, apparently of their own volition, they claimed to have sold the Tovlan landfill site. We submitted evidence that this was untrue.  No reaction from officers to being deliberately misled by a bidder.

When Enterprise asked for extra time to put in their final bid they were refused. The council’s reason for refusal of extra time are almost the same, and as unenlightening, as the refusal to exercise their discretion to exclude Veolia –

‘because that’s what we have decided.’

So no comeback for Veolia for giving misleading information to the council but instead officers’ action leaving Veolia as the only bidder.

If the officers refused to engage with us, what about the elected members of the executive?

Our petition with more than 2,000 signatures was presented to the executive. There was no response from the Executive member leading on the environment. It was referred to Fiona Ledden, head of procurement for consideration.  The same Fiona Ledden who had been stonewalling us.

A request to Cllr butt and Fiona Ledden for the outcome of that consideration was requested some time ago but only answered on Thursday. This merely said the council did not intent to revisit the decision not to exclude Veolia made on January 31^st

                                          in other words ‘we are ignoring your petition’

Our supporters made presentations on the issue to various Brent Connects forums. The notes say their comments would be referred to Cllr Roxanne Mashari as lead member for environment.  They have heard no more.

Liz Lindsay, Secretary of Brent and Harrow PSC has received no response to a request sent to Cllr Mashari in June, to meet with her and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians regarding the contract.

The officers’ report you are considering this evening makes absolutely no reference to any of these representations. If we had not made them public and written to councillors you will have had no idea that this is a controversial issue.

           Transparency? Accountability? Participation?

The GCs of both Hampstead and Kilburn and Brent Central Labour parties, Brent TUC and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians have supported our case.  We have been supported by several of the candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary nomination. Brent Lib Dems were ruled out of order when they tried to put a question about Veolia at full council.

I know that some members of the Executive have misgivings on the issue. Cllr Mashari herself, reporting on a visit to Israel/Palestine with the Young Fabians, paid for by BICOM (set up to ‘create a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain) said that the one issue she was repeatedly told should be addressed to bring peace was that of illegal Israeli settlements.

Apart from all of the above can the council truly save that they are sure of ‘best value’ for Brent residents in a process that led, at the final hurdle, to Veolia having no competitor for the Executive to consider.

 In Q1 of 2013-14 there was a failure to reach targets for reduction in residual waste and increased recycling at a cost of £226,000 with Veolia the current contractor.

We suggest the Executive:

1.     Extend the current contract for a year

2.     Start a new procurement process with robust ethical conditions attached

3.     Consider separating the parks/ground maintenance services from that contract to allow waste specialist companies to bid.

4.     Consider supporting an in-house bid for the parks/grounds maintenance contract

Brent Council pay-offs revealed

Gareth Daniel - pay-off better than a game of conkers

Brent Lib Dems have revealed 'the compensation for loss of office' sums awarded to former Chief Executive Gareth Daniel and former Director of Finance Clive Heaphy as £200,702 and £140,508 respectively. Gareth Daniel went after a row with Muhammed Butt, leader of the council and Clive Heaphy went following his suspension pending investigation of allegations of gross misconduct which were later withdrawn.

 The figure for exit packages breaks down as follows:

• 2010/11 – £3.502 million
• 2011/12 – £4.366 million
• 2012/13 – £2.311 million
• TOTAL – £10.179 million

The Lib Dem claim that  if it was managed more effectively this money could have helped keep closed libraries open, fix potholes and clean streets.

Gareth Daniel did not do as well as his predecessor George Benham. Benham got £700,00 compensation (including a car)  in 1998 when Daniel, then an ex-GLC left-winger, was installed in his place.

Brent Council to act on London Living Wage

London Citizens as well as the Green Party have supported a London Living Wage

 A report going before the next Brent Executive recommends the following actions:

That the Executive agrees to the Council seeking Accreditation as a London Living Wage Employer.

That the Executive agrees to the take positive steps to review its existing contracts over a three year period on a case by case basis to wherever possible apply LLW criteria.

That Social Care  contracts are examined with the London Living Wage Foundation and other LLW Boroughs to explore the application of LLW.

That the Executive agrees that Officers should act to promote the application of the LLW to schools, businesses and other organisations within Brent.

The Executive agrees that subject to Finance, Procurement and Legal advice officers seek to apply the LLW consideration when tendering

A further recommendation states:

That Members note the comments of the Deputy Director of Finance regarding the potential cost of applying LLW.

A dispute between Muhammed Butt and Gareth Daniel over the affordability of  paying the London Living Wage is widely believed to have contributed to the latter's demise.   Directly employed Brent staff and agency workers employed by the Council will all be on the London Living Wage by October this year. Problems arise over out-sourced staff such as social carers and those employed by schools.

Governing bodies, rather than the council, make school employment decisions so the council will seek to influence schools rather than direct them. Potential legal difficulties are also likely in terms of the council's duty to seek 'best value' in terms of procurement and they would need to demonstrate that paying the London Living Wage would enhance the service. This might be an issue in the huge public realm contract that was advertised before Christmas covering waste collection recycling  street cleaning and parks maintenance. The sole award criteria is 'the most economic tender' which suggests low wages LINK

The report makes a persuasive case for paying the London Living Wage which has been a campaigning aim of the Green Party since its inception in 2005 but which in 2011 was only paid by a handful of London Councils. The Green Party also supports a national living wage.

Income is one of the key determinants of building in individual and community resilience to these unprecedented economic circumstances. Brent is described as a ‘low income’ Borough and its’ patterns of occupations have been in sectors where pay is lower than average. By signing up to the London Living Wage the Council can by its actions show commitment and Leadership to lift the incomes of both its residents and people who work for it.

The main benefits which have been so far experienced by both Public and Private Sectors in applying the London Living Wage have been:

• lower staff turnover

• improved productivity

• lower sickness absence

In addition by applying and extending London Living Wage the Council would be in a position to help encourage employers who pay low wages to set a minimum pay rate that enables employees to provide the essentials of life. It will also fit squarely with the Councils vision and values and promote the recruitment and retention of a high quality workforce to deliver for the Council and its Communities.

I welcome the Council's move but regret that this is in the context of  the overall cuts in council jobs (with more to come) and the imposition of flexible working on council staff.

For doubters about the efficacy of the policy this report from the BBC may help change your mind. It is argued that paying the Living Wage could actually save £2bn: LINK

A 'Green' white elephant is still a white elephant

Tours to show off the New Civic Centre's green credentials ere held on Saturday

Cllr Powney accuses Brent Greens of being against any new building. Strangely something that Gareth Daniel accused me of last year when I had criticised the Civic Centre project. Nonsense of course.

When I was a headteacher we had a wonderful new green children's nursery built at Park Lane Primary with a green roof, underfloor heating etc LINK and it replaced a wooden hut that was falling down. The nursery was necessary  as the then Labour Council eventually agreed after a campaign by parents, governors, teachers and children. In contrast Brent council tax payers were never consulted about a new civic centre.

Park Lane nursery, recently demolished to make way for school expansion

From the inside

 The issue with the Civic Centre as far as I am concerned is whether a building of such grandiose design, on a prime site (that nonetheless will make it inaccessible on event days and evenings),  is necessary, or desirable, in an era of austerity and a shrinking council labour force. How 'green' it may be is not the main issue but all the same the carbon cost of mining materials and transporting them should be part of the balance sheet and the alternative of refurbishing an existing building (say Unisys House) should have been considered.

It is with us now and we will see if it is still a great idea in 25 year's time when it will have repaid the £102,000,000 spent on it. I'll have to stay alive that long just to have the pleasure of telling Cllr Powney 'I told you so!'.

What's happening with Brent's 2013-14 budget?

Brent Expenditure and Income 2012-13

The Council Budget for 2013-14 should be on the agenda for the Full Council Meeting on November 19th according to the Council's budgetary process:

There is a Full Council meeting (usually in November) where the budget is raised as an issue. All Councillors of all political groups are invited to submit ideas, plans and suggestions for inclusion in the next year's budget. These suggestions are then taken away and discussed by the Executive (usually in December).

The Executive will then issue their proposals for the budget.

At the same time Scrutiny's Budget Panel is sitting and they also come up with their proposals by February. The report is considered by the Executive and, if required, changes are made to the proposals.

Finally, the proposals go to another Full Council meeting where they are voted on, and, whatever is agreed, is implemented as the council's budget for the next year.

However, there are reports that the Council is behind with the process this year perhaps as a result of changes in the officer and councillors involved in Finance.  By the second week in November last year Cllr Ann John had issued a 'Bad News' budget report LINK.

Is is likely that we will receive an 'Even More Bad News' report from Muhammed Butt soon. There has been no word from Cllr Ruth Moher, now Lead Member for Finance and Resources who took over the post from Butt following the 'coup'.

Meanwhile the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 15th November may give us some clues. What is beyond doubt is that with government grants reduced and pressures on council spending from homelessness and social care of the elderly the situation will be dire. Apart from the potential revenue from a rise in Council Tax (a tiny proportion of the overall budget which is mainly made up of government grants) there are few options open to the Council apart from making more cuts which will impact on the vulnerable, or taking a stand against the Coalition and devising a campaigning needs led budget and a consequent deficit budget.  

This would involve a real dialogue with trades unions, voluntary organisations, community groups, campaigning groups and residents. Time is limited and such  process should begin as soon as possible.

Background is provided by the mid-year Brent Treasury Report by Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance. The Director of Finance, Clive Heaphy remains suspended and there is no word on the financial settlement for Gareth Daniel, the former Chief Executive.

The Report outlines theCapital Finance Requirement (CFR) requirements for the years ahead with a significant  increase next year:
 

	31/03/12 Actual	31/03/2013 Estimate	31/03/2014 Estimate	31/03/2015 Estimate
CFR	£537m	£598m	£594m	£591m

 At the same time there is a significant  forecast reduction in 'usable' reserves:

	31/03/2012 Actual	31/03/2013 Estimate	31/03/2014 Estimate	31/03/2015 Estimate
Usable Reserves	£58m	£37m	£30m	£24m

There has been a shift from short-term to long-term borrowing which remains under the limits set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government. An additional £20m has been borrowed since April 2012 and a rise in the rate of interest:

Borrowing	Balance on 01/04/2012	Debt Repaid	New Borrowing	Balance on 30/09/2012
Short-term	£26.3m	£44.3m	£18m	0
Long-Term	£405.5m	£1.2m	£20m	£424.3
Total	£431.8m	£45.5m	£38m	£424.3
Average Rate %	4.45%			4.71%

The Report states that the Council expects to recover £4m of the £5m inested in Icelandic domiciled banks and £9m of the £10m invested in non-Iceland domiciled banks. The Council's investment income this year is estimated at only £0.1m .

The full Mid Year Report is available HERE



 

Whistles, leaks and the public interest

In its 'Council at War' front page story on September 6th the Brent and Kilburn Times, LINK apart from  reporting the proceedings of the Brent Labour Group regarding the relationship between Muhammed Butt, the current Brent Council leader, and Gareth Daniel, then the Chief Executive, also published extracts from a series of e-mails.

The content of the e-mails vividly illustrated how the relationship was at breaking point. Daniel accused Butt of writing in a 'vitriolic and accusatory tone' and Butt described Daniel's e-mail as 'aggressive' and doubted whether they could continue to work together.

The Council's whistle blowing policy  is mainly aimed at uncovering fraud and offers protection to the whistleblower.. The most prominent local case has been Hank Roberts' reporting of alleged fraud over bonuses at Copland High School in a case which is ongoing. He has received official recognition for his whistleblowing.

In the case of community  schools the whistleblower can go to the chair of governors or the local authority. As far as academies go it is not quite so clear, particularly if the alleged fraud involves the chair of governors. In that case it goes straight to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State, who has an increasing number of such schools under his direct management.

What happens in the case of the council when the whistle blower is confronted with evidence of a major bust-up between the two most senior people on the council?  It is not fraud or even unlawful but surely it is in the public interest that residents should know about a matter that directly impacts on the efficient running of their public services. Surely council employees have a right to know that their employers are at war with each other?

So someone leaked the e-mails to the press; perhaps a council employee with access to the e-mail accounts of both men, or a councillor with similar access. Either way I imagine they would have to have been quite senior.  It seems unlikely that Butt or Daniel themselves may have done the leaking - but these are the strangest of times. The central question for me is: does this leak constitute a form of whistle blowing? Some might argue it was all just tittle tattle.

If the leaker was an employee, their union representatives may well be able to mount quite a strong case that the leak was in the public interest and so he or she should be protected. 

Policies are derived from the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1998 and this section seems relevant:

Disclosure of exceptionally serious failure.(1)A qualifying disclosure is made in accordance with this section if—
(a)the worker makes the disclosure in good faith,
(b)he reasonably believes that the information disclosed, and any allegation contained in it, are substantially true,
(c)he does not make the disclosure for purposes of personal gain,
(d)the relevant failure is of an exceptionally serious nature, and
(e)in all the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable for him to make the disclosure.
(2)In determining for the purposes of subsection (1)(e) whether it is reasonable for the worker to make the disclosure, regard shall be had, in particular, to the identity of the person to whom the disclosure is made.

The last section looks a little dodgy and comes back to the question of whether there was anyone else, other than the press, to whom a disclosure could have been made. There is also the question of whether the employee is in breach of a duty of confidentiality that forms part of their contract.

From the trade union representative point of view this could be a fascinating case. When I was a Natsopa print union representative at Reuters back in the 1960s I found myself handling some bizarre cases. One involved defending a worker who was found lighting paper in the basement of the Reuters building, apparently to set fire to it, Another was a studious young man fresh from college who took a week's unauthorised leave without contacting the management. On his return they decided to sack him.  It turned out that he had used the time to come up with some ideas for automating the workplace  and reducing the workforce. I found myself negotiating to stop the sacking of a union member who wanted to do us out of our jobs!

On reflection this case may be more straightforward and I wish Unison or any other union involved the best of luck.

(By the way I 'won' both cases with appropriate help for the workers involved)

Lively Brent Council conference expected tomorrow

People are getting in touch with disbelief about the latest turn of events in Brent and asking what's the suspension of Clive Heaphy. I don't know what the specific allegation is but gross misconduct has to be pretty serious. Things such as racism, sexism, misuse of IT systems, major breaches of confidentiality would all be covered but it could be something quite technical. Remember these are only allegations and the council has a duty to investigate to see if they have any basis. Suspension is a neutral act while an investigation takes place and doesn't imply guilt. The same applies in the case of teachers and headteachers.

Meanwhile the Brent Executive and Senior Officers and Managers have a conference tomorrow which was arranged long ago. It should be interesting. Any flies on the wall should get in touch!

Lessons from George Benham, previous Brent Chief Executive

A young Gareth Daniel gives Benham his farewell card

 I have managed to unearth some details of when the previous Chief Executive, George Benham, was removed from his post.

From the Daily Mail, July 17th, 1998:

THE highly respected chief executive of a Labour-controlled council has been forced out with a £700,000 payoff and a former Leftwing member of the GLC installed in his place.

Council tax payers will have to foot the bill for George Benham's sudden departure from Brent Council in favour of Gareth Daniel, a former Labour parliamentary candidate and close colleague of Brent East Labour MP Ken Livingstone.

Last night Tories accused the Labour group at the North-West London council - once renowned for its 'loony Left' policies - of a scandalous waste of council tax payers' money.

The £700,000 payoff included a car and a £51,768 pension brought forward 10 years,

Benham left 8 months before his 4 year contract had expired and had worked for Brent for 13 years, previously as Director of Education.  His salary as Chief Executive was £115,000 annually.

Benham went on to become headteacher of Cardinal Hinsley Catholic Secondary School anxious to prove his mettle after years of giving advice to headteachers. He only lasted a short time before quitting amidst high staff turnover and complaints from teachers that he was unable to control violent pupil behaviour towards staff.

Any shift in cuts strategy after Daniel's departure?

There is no official news of the pay-off that Gareth Daniel is likely to get following his departure as Chief Executive but informed speculation starts at £1m.  His salary was more than £200,000 and there are precedents in Brent for handsome pay-offs of senior officers including that of a former Director of Education.

The cover arrangements for the post are in several stages:  Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement, will be the immediate stand-in but she will be replaced by an 'external interim Chief Executive' in the next few weeks, pending the appointment of a new Chief Executive which could take several months.

If the clash between Daniel as Chief Executive and Muhammed Butt as leader was over cuts, then budget plans could be in for some revision as well as the crucial decision over whether to raise Council Tax. This is an area where senior council officers (4 out of 6 of whom declared their support for Daniel) are likely to intervene in the interregnum which coincides with preparation for next year's budget. It is here that the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects will be influential.

Brent Council Executive does not seem to have considered the possible deletion of the Chief Executive post as some councils have done LINK

Fiona Ledden, in my experience of  observing council meetings, is a woman of few words, but those she does utter, as perhaps befits her legal background, are always on the side of caution and following the letter of the law.

Retreating into the hills while Brent implodes

Off to the hills for a week so no postings on Wembley Matters for a while.

It looks as if I will return to a changed Brent Council landscape. Any tips on who will be acting Chief Exec if today's golden handshake negotiations succeed?

Any money on Andy Donald?

Will the Ann John loyalists strike back?

Keep up on Twitter @bktimes

Lorber calls for end to Brent Council infighting

Cllr Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat and former leader of Brent Council has made the following statement on the current situation on the Council:

This is an extraordinary breakdown in relationships and poses a real risk to the effective running of Brent Council. I have had my differences with Gareth Daniel over the years but have always found it possible to maintain a professional relationship.

If Labour councillors are clumsily trying to ease Mr Daniel out of his position they are risking very large sums of public cash on redundancy and compensation payments, not to mention the damage to their and the council’s reputation.

It’s clear that the Labour group is split down the middle and Cllr Butt is being undermined even by his own Executive members. For the sake of Brent’s residents this infighting needs to end.

U-turn if you want to - this gent is not for turning!

"I will not bend"

The Newsletter of Brent Council's Chief Executive always makes fascinating reading - particularly between the lines:

The June 21st Newsletter exalts in the close relationship between officers and councillors and gives this insight into Gareth Daniel's view of decision making. It sounds as if he has formed his own version of the 'No Turning Back' group which was formed to prevent any change of mind on Margaret Thatcher's 'reforms'.:

Gareth Daniel in 1982

Once any necessary consultation has taken place, we should always move confidently into action mode and when we make a decision we need to stick to it.  Nobody respects an organisation that bends to the demands of every pressure group or the inevitable special pleading of sectional interest groups.

Presumably this is what he is saying to Muhammed Butt, the recently elected  'official' leader of Brent Council.

I guess people who believe in the importance of libraries are a 'sectional interest' group, as are those who believe in the importance of early childhood provision, or even those who think it is quite nice if people have a roof over their head...

Brent Council: Who's in charge?

The relationship between the Chief Executive of a council and its Leader varies between councils. That between Brent's Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel and Councillor Ann John. Leader, has come in for comment because it sometimes appears that the usual roles have been reversed: Gareth Daniel is the political leader and Ann John the manager of cuts. It is more likely that the roles have begun to merge.

Back in 1997 the Local and Central Government Relations Research No 55 stated:

Chief executives’ view of the future is coloured by their role in local governance. Interview evidence suggests most of those active in local governance think it can be developed within existing legislation.

A few would like to see the position of the chief executive strengthened at the expense of councillors, who would see their role reduced to broad policy and scrutiny. A strengthened chief executive might resemble an unelected mayor. If elected mayors were introduced some existing chief executives, it was suggested, would stand for election, a comment that reinforces evidence of a local leadership role taken by some chief executives.

Certainly Gareth Daniel had to take such a role in 2005 when he ran the council in the interregnum after the NOC election when the political parties were unable to agree coalition arrangements.

More recently his Newsletters to council staff have revealed further information about the relationship and particularly his stance on the cuts::

All councils have a legal duty to live within their means and to set a balanced budget and the Executive was clear that this is what will happen.  But they were also equally clear that they wanted to think and plan ahead at least to the end of their current four year term and to do their utmost to protect frontline services.  This approach will give us all a degree of confidence about the future and some assurance that our political leaders have both the ability and inclination to take control of events. (November 2011)

This month's Newsletter sees him taking a political stance that criticises those fighting the cuts:

I have been particularly struck recently by the electorate’s response to the financial problems facing the public sector.  It’s not that I am surprised that the British people don’t like paying more taxes, fees and charges – who does?  I am also not that surprised when local people protest against plans to close a much-loved local facility whether it is a library, a school, a clinic or a post office.  People understandably don’t like losing things that they value or which they see as important parts of their local community.  But what I do find surprising is the degree to which the public seems to be in denial about the very existence of a financial crisis at all and their curious belief that councils and other public services should somehow solve their financial problems without making any changes to service provision.

More controversially he then seeks to instruct council employees, already working harder because of staff reductions, experiencing frozen wages, and with further cuts hanging over them, to persuade the electorate to accept the cuts:

It is now the job of every council employee to help explain these facts to the very best of our ability.  It’s probably unrealistic to expect people to praise us for taking tough but necessary decisions – that really would be a surprise!  But the public do have a responsibility to live in the same real world that we ourselves occupy.  No grown up can simply ignore the economic realities and pretend that councils should continue with ‘business as usual’ regardless of the serious financial problems facing the country in general and local government in particular.  While many people are quick to condemn public servants for taking difficult decisions, the public cannot be allowed to think that difficult decisions can themselves be avoided.  That is the economics of cloud cuckoo land.

So I would like to ask all members of staff to see 2012 as the year in which we really try to get the message across to local people about the Council’s approach to budget reductions, service improvement and value-for-money.  Of course some people won’t listen whatever we say but I believe that the majority of people are open to argument most of the time.  That is our opportunity to make our case, to explain the really harsh climate in which councils are now having to operate and to win public understanding (if not actual support) for the approach we are taking.  The only alternative to the One Council programme would be even worse cuts to frontline services and even more unpopular decisions that would upset even more local people.  Brent Council has a good story to tell when it comes to budget savings – let’s all make sure we start to communicate our positive message with pride and conviction.  [Daniels' emphasis] (December 2011)

 Several councils have recently decided to do without Chief Executives. Such a decision would save Brent council Daniels' salary of £194,550 plus 20% on costs.  Unsurprisingly SOLACE , the Chief Executives' professional organisation, makes the case for Chief Executives:

The role of the Chief Executive and Leader are closely linked but are not wholly discrete –they are overlapping and complementary which brings its own set of tensions. One of the key roles of the Leader and Chief Executive should be to construct trust at a point of tension and potential conflict between the different
worlds of political logic and managerial logic. It is important that there is mutual understanding of each others’ roles, and this relies on good communications.

A Leader must be able to impart to their Chief Executive their understanding of the group and of the wider political context and imperatives without such communications being seen as disloyal. The Chief Executive needs in a similar way, without eroding the loyalty owed to colleague officers, to be able to discuss with a Leader their managerial capacity or incapacity to deliver on a particular agenda. This is not just about interpersonal skills but about mutual grasp of each other’s worlds.

A wise Chief Executive commits to their Leader unconditionally, and understands this as including roles of confidant, mentor, partisan, speech writer and PR consultant. When it works, the relationship between Leader and Chief Executive is an exceptional thing (My emphasis)