When Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent Council, stood to present the report on the progress of the recommendations made in his review of Brent Human Relations, there were none of the usual officers present at his elbow who normally support lead members at meetings. Noting this Pavey said that the report had been tabled without the final version being given to him for his approval.
He went on to say that he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.
The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK) that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,
He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case. This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda. He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'
Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings. He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review. The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.
Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained. Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat as a method would not work. Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice' but he would take back the wider issue to HR.
Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.
A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.
Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.
Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.
He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:
NOTE: It is work noting that Michael Pavey was not the only person who was affected by attempts to limit discussion of the Davani case. Philip Grant was particularly active in seeking answers to key questions and was not allowed to raise the issue at a previous Scrutiny Committee LINK
Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.
Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.
He went on to say that he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.
The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK) that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,
He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case. This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda. He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'
Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings. He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review. The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.
Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained. Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat as a method would not work. Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice' but he would take back the wider issue to HR.
Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.
A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.
Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.
Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.
He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:
'Without question Brent is a fairer, more inclusive, more rewarding employer than when we lost the tribunal which triggered this work.'
 |
| Cara Davani with Council Leader Muhammed Butt |
Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.
Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.
