Brent Council and Cara Davani: ‘Both parties had something to hide, so they both agreed to hide it.’

Philip Grant added a comment to a previous blog yesterday which contains some new information about the likely “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani. So that all Wembley Matters readers are aware of this new development, I am posting his comment here as a separate guest blog:-

Despite a reminder to Christine Gilbert this afternoon (Friday Aigust 7th) that I was expecting her reply 'by the end of this week', I have not heard anything further from her, and so am still waiting for her answers to my two simple "yes" or "no" questions. See LINK if you don't know what these are.

Cllr. Warren copied to me an email he sent to Brent's Chief Legal Officer on Wednesday, referring to my email above of 3 August and supporting the arguments I had made. Calling for Christine Gilbert or Fiona Alderman to provide the answers to my questions, he said: 'It cannot be right to deny both Members and Brent Council tax payers such basic information.' Ms Alderman copied to me her acknowledgement, saying that she would reply to Cllr. Warren shortly, but if she has replied, I am not aware of what she has said.

I can now say for certain that there WAS an agreement between Brent Council and Cara Davani. Some WM readers have said that the continued mantra from Ms Gilbert, Ms Alderman and Cllr. Butt of: ‘The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure,’ meant that there must have been "arrangements". They were right. 

A reliable source has now told me that when she left Brent in June 'both Cara Davani and the Council signed an agreement. One clause of this restricted either party from disclosing the details of the agreement.' So much for openness and transparency! Both parties had something to hide, so they both agreed to hide it.

Despite this, it is NOT the details of the agreement that my two questions are asking for, so there is no valid reason why Christine Gilbert should refuse to answer them. It seems highly likely that the agreement involved some financial benefit to Ms Davani, so that the answer to at least one of the questions must be "no". In that case, Christine Gilbert also needs to tell Brent's councillors, its staff and its residents what the justification is for the Council giving that financial benefit to Cara Davani, so that councillors in particular can satisfy themselves that this is not a misuse of Council funds.

Brent Members' Bulletin 'not a forum for ongoing political debate' despite Butt's message on Employment Tribunal

Cllr John Warren (Conservative, Brondesbury Park)  has taken up Muhammed Butt’s defence LINK  of decisions regarding the Employment Tribunal where the London Borough of Brent was found to have racially discriminated against a member of its staff, victimised her and constructively dismissed her.

Warren told me:

Following on from Cllr. Butt's extraordinary piece on Rosemarie Clarke in last week's Members' Information Bulletin I asked Brent Council to include a mild reply from me in this week' s bulletin.  The Council stated that Cllr. Butt was writing as Lead Member for Legal Services  and that the weekly bulletin was not to be used to continue an " ongoing debate." They refused to print my piece.  The Members' Handbook states on Page 19 that the Information Bulletin is not to be used for party- political purposes. So what was Cllr. Butt' s contribution supposed to be on such a highly politicised issue?!!  This is what I wanted to write.....hardly particularly controversial..........

Statement regarding employment tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke
(Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group)

Much has been written and said about the the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been fair and accurate.........

1. The case 3302741/2013 is listed as   Ms R.Clarke v. 1. L.B.Brent v.2. Ms Cara Davani

2.Para. 302 of the judgement states " The tribunal is satisfied that the action of Ms  Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did ,was a direct consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal finds that the claimant was thereby victimised."

3.Brent Council appealed the original decision of the tribunal despite the judge stating that " there was no reasonable prospect of success."

4.According to the Council press release Ms Davani left Brent at end of June 2015 to take a " career break."

5. The Council has not accepted F.O.I requests or enquiries from residents to reveal details of the " pay- off " to Ms Davani.

6. The 2015/2016 Accounts will eventually show any " compensation " payments that may or not have been made to Ms Davani.

Cllr John Warren

Brent Council Race Equality Award condemned

Following yesterday's revelation that Brent Council was a finalist for a Race for Opportunity award the organisation has received messages from local people about the council's record in this area. Here are two of them:

I am not sure why Race for Opportunity is surprised that BAME representation is decreasing when RFO itself is actively contributing to this state of affairs.

Black staff in Brent are reeling from the shock, as am I, of hearing that RFO has shortlisted Brent Council as a finalist for its RFO Award.

One only has to enter "race discrimination Brent council" in a search engine box to find out how the council's director of HR (acting in cahoots with her friend the chief executive, in further cahoots with the council's employment solicitor, aka director of HR's business and personal partner) was found guilty by an employment tribunal of race discrimination and victimisation of a black manager.

One has only to read some of the Wembley Matters blog articles to find out how disgusted Brent residents are at the council's total failure to investigate this HR director's wrong-doing and initiate disciplinary proceedings. LIN

All of the miscreants in this disgraceful case are desperate to redeem themselves on their CVs for their future employment prospects (the HRD left at the end of June with a payoff, nearly a year after the tribunal exposed her unacceptable behaviour, her partner has followed her and the chief executive's contract will be up some time this month.

They will undoubtedly be thanking RFO profusely that they can now say that they steered the council to being shortlisted for the award. Absolute shame on Race for Opportunity, an organisation that I have hitherto admired.

Googling stuff is so easy to do these days, RFO - not always accurate I know, but such a good idea to avoid promoting the very people that would be anathema to the professed RFO values. Even "Private Eye" has run parts of this dsgraceful story, so it seems only RFO is in the dark.

I will be copy- posting this blog piece on the Wembley Matters blog.

Nan Tewari
former Branch Secretary, Brent Nalgo (now Unison)

I write in disbelief regarding the the nomination of Brent Council for an award from your organisation....it's not April Fools Day yet is it??  Your spokesman is reported as saying that Brent puts " race equality at the heart of their activity"....ouch!!!  Are you aware of the following facts? 

1. Brent was found guilty of racial discrimination in the case of Rosemarie Clarke.   

2. The judge stated that Brent was guilty of bullying, intimidation and constructive dismissal.  

3.The decision in the case was so damning that the judge said that " Brent had no reasonable prospect of success" on appeal. Yet still Brent wasted Council taxpayer monies on fruitless appeals. 

4.The compensation award against Brent is likely to be made in September - perhaps coinciding with your awards ceremony. The exemplary damages are likely to be significant, and the total award against Brent is suggested to be between £500k and £1m.  

5. Brent engaged in a farcical internal review - led by Council Deputy Leader -of its H.R.practices after the case, despite calls throughout Brent for an independent review.   

I would ask you to reflect on your nomination. I am copying this e-mail to interested community parties. 

 Cllr John Warren

Final outcome of Tory showdown at Brent's OK Corrall uncertain

Last night's Full Meeting of Brent Council must have left the new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs wondering about the tough task ahead in getting the Council out of its slough of despond, while Christine Gilbert could be forgiven for celebrating her forthcoming liberation by performing  cartwheels in the Civic Centre atrium.

The showdown between the two groups of Tory Councillors dominated the business part of the meeting but when the gunfire died down no one could agree on the final outcome.

The 56 Labour councillors may have decided to recognise the Kenton Tories as the principal opposition with the status and funding that goes with that or the decision may have been  handed over to a constitutional working party to negotiate on before the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee.

CLARIFICATION (sic) These are the responses I got this morning:
 

Brent Council Press Office:

The group led by Cllr Kansagra was voted in as the principal opposition last night.  

Cllr Michael Pavey (Deputy Leader - Labour)

As it stands Kenton are the principal Opposition. There is a meeting of the constitution committee next week which will review the situation,  but only a vote by Full Council or a change in the number of members in either Tory Group can change this.

The next challenge is to try and allocate Committees between the two.

Cllr Joel Davidson (Briondesbury Park Conservatives)

What happened is that Mo Butt has chosen the Kenton Group to be Principal Opposition, that's what he got his Group to vote for last night. That means that Kansagra and Colwill will once again draw the allowances - 12k and 8k - that come with being Leader and Deputy Leader.

The constitutional working party, if there is one, is supposed to negotiate between the 2 Opposition Groups - Brent Tories and Kenton/Butt Group - as to who sits on the 6 main committees - GP, planning, equalities etc. 

If we can't agree, as seems very likely, then Council will again vote to give all the main committee posts to the Kenton/Butt Group.  It's another sad day for democracy in Brent when a Dear Leader can hand-pick a pliant Opposition which has no political affiliation and is committed to giving him as easy a ride as possible.  As I asked Butt last night - is 56 Labour Cllrs not enough that you need to co-opt 3 more AND make them the 'Opposition'??  

Meanwhile the tweets can tell the story:

Conservative HQ tell Brent Council Warren's posse are official Conservative Group

The issue of who represent the principal opposition in Brent Council is to be resolved tonight at a Full Council Meeting.

On the eve of the meeting the Leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt,  and Christine Gilbert, Interim Chief Executive, have been forwarded the following email from the Conservative Party:

As you are aware it had been decided that the Conservative Party would formally recognise the Annual General Meeting of the Brent Conservative Group that was held on 13^th May.  All conservative party candidates elected to the Brent Local Authority were invited and the meeting was independently chaired by a North West London Area Officer.  All those entitled to attend were given proper notice and details of the nomination procedure for group officers.

Cllrs Warren, Shaw and Davidson attended the meeting.  However, Cllrs Kansagra, Colwill and Maurice chose not to attend and have subsequently refused to take part in the group.

As a result it is the Group led by Cllr Warren that the Party will formally recognise as the Brent Conservative Group.  Furthermore unless Cllrs Kansagra, Colwill and Maurice join the Group they will not be authorised to stand as Conservative Party candidates at future elections.

Please do feel free to contact me if I can be of any further help,

Mark Roberts.

Voluntary Party Manager for the Conservative Party

Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, North West London, Oxfordshire, Suffolk

Update on Brent Conservatives rift

The Kilburn Times LINK has followed up my story on the row between the rival Conservative groups on Brent Council LINK.  I had offered Cllr Suresh Kansagra the opportunity to comment on my piece but he did not respond.

This is what he told the Kilburn Times:

Cllr Suresh Kansagra said they (the Kenton group)  did not attend the (Conservative HQ organised) meeting because they did not recognise it as constitutional and will challenge any decision not made in their favour.

He told the Times: “We called our (Kenton Conservative AGM) meeting on May 11, a proper legal meeting, our constitution and the constitution of the conservative central office. That constitution allows only the leader, the leader of the group and members. They (the Brondesbury Park group)  were not invited because they are not paid members of the group.

“As far as we are concerned we are the conservative group on Brent council unless I am told otherwise from anywhere. Central office does not have the authority to call other AGMs under the constitution of the group.”

He said they were notified to attend the meeting but not consulted.

“We do not recognise them as Conservative Party members,” he said.

 At the Council Annual General Meeting on Wednesday a vote will be taken by the whole Council (56 out of 63 of whom are Labour councillors) on who to recognise as the principal opposition group.

It could be lively.

Tories seek to strengthen Brent Council Scrutiny and accountability at AGM

Cllr John Warren (Conservative) has sent me the following regarding proposals to be put to Brent Council's AGM on Wednesday:

Item 13 of the Council AGM is "Changes to the Constitution." So I put forward a number of amendments for consideration by the meeting, but Council officers told me that they could not be considered because my amendments were nothing to do with the amendments being proposed in the report!!!

So what is " changes to the constitution,"  supposed to mean?

Anyway, I shall be speaking on this item and will circulate my amendments at the AGM. My proposals are in three categories....... 

1.To delete the elaborate and impossible procedure which currently exists if members wish to remove the Council leader.I propose that we revert to the time - honoured tradition of a straightforward yes or no vote on the night.

2.A radical restructuring of the scrutiny process .....it has failed abysmally over the past year.I cannot think of a single occasion when it has shown any teeth.I believe that each lead member and their portfolio should be subject to separate sub- committees so as  to scrutinise in a more forensic way.I also propose a separate sub- committee to scrutinise the Leader and deputy.I propose increasing the number of scrutiny members to 20 so that the heavier workload can involve more members. 

3.I am also proposing a " People's Question Time ."This should be a 15 minute slot whereby the Cabinet can answer questions from Brent residents without notice of the question in the same way as PMQs.

Brent Conservatives: splits, leaders and ultimatums

The split between the two Conservative groupings on Brent Council has widened following intervention of Conservative Campaign Head Quarters.

A Brent Conservatives' AGM was held recently attended by CCHQ and SE England officials at which Cllr John Warren was elected leader.

However the meeting was attended by only the three 'Brondesbury Park' Conservatives with the three 'Kenton Conservatives' absent.   I understand that the Kenton Conservatives had already held their own AGM of their 'official' group (recognised as such at the last Brent Council AGM) to which the Brondesbury Park Tories were not invited as they are not part of the group.

They elected Cllr Suresh Kansagra leader.

Conservative Campaign Head Quarters have now issued an ultimatum to the Kenton Group which expires at 1pm on Monday to accept Cllr Warren as leader following what they consider the constitutionally valid election, or forfeit their right to be considered Conservative Party councillors and to stand as Conservatives at the next local election.

Cllr Joel Davidson told me today that Brent residents had been 'ill-served by the weak opposition to Labour provided up to now by Cllr Suresh Kansagra and the Kenton Conservatives.'  He said that a stronger Conservative opposition would seek to represent not just Conservative voters but everyone who had not voted Labour.

Davidson went on to say that the failure of the Kenton Conservatives to vote for the Brondesbury Park no confidence motion in Muhammed Butt and the alternative budget proposals Kenton had put forward proved their cosy relationship with Brent Labour.

The results of the most recent AGM have been communicated to Brent Council officials ahead of the vote due to be held at the Council AGM on May 20th on who to recognise as the Principal Opposition Party.

Will Labour vote for Cllr Kansagra's group or the rather more militant Bondesbury Group?

Kenton by-election to be held on Thursday March 5th

There will be a Brent  by-election in Kenton ward on Thurday March 5th following the death of Conservative councillor Bhiku Patel.

The Kenton ward result in the  May 2014 local elections was:

Suresh Laxmidas Kansagra	Conservative	1798	19%	Elected
Reg Colwill	Conservative	1796	19%	Elected
Bhiku Mani Patel	Conservative	1669	18%	Elected
Syed Alam	Labour	1139	12%	Not elected
Lewis Hodgetts	Labour	1040	11%	Not elected
Nadhim Ahmed	Labour	946	10%	Not elected
Graham Allen	Green Party	348	4%	Not elected
Violet Margaret Steele	Liberal Democrats	221	2%	Not elected
Vivienne Rosamond Williamson	Liberal Democrats	153	2%	Not elected
Ieva Tomsone	Liberal Democrats	125	1%	Not elected

Anyone wishing to stand as a candidate at the election may submit their nomination between Thursday 29 January and 4.00pm on Friday 6 February.
Nomination forms and assistance can be provided by emailing Electoral Services or call 020 8937 1372

Rumours are circulating that Brondesbury Conservatives may stand a candidate so that in the event of beating a Kenton Conservative  they could claim recognition as the Official Opposition. Cllr John Warren of Brondesbury Conservatives has not responded to Twitter requests for clarification.

Leeks the most interesting item at Brent Council meeting

A satirical local activist presented Brent Council's Cabinet members with a leak each just before the formal start of last night's Full Council meeting at Brent Civic Centre.

The presentation followed mounting concern in Brent Labour Party over leaks from the Labour Group and meetings of the party to Wembley Matters.

The councillors instantly realised what was meant by the gesture and took it in good part, appearing to laugh it off:

Most of the meeting went according to the script published in my previous blog LINK with planted questions from backbench Labour councillors and pre-prepared answers from Cabinet members. There was what appeared to be a genuine question from Cllr Neil Nerva asking about the extent and quality of consultation over the Constitutional Amendments that had been tabled.  He was concerned about the impact on whistleblowers. One of the amendments, as Cllr John Warren pointed out for the Brondesbury Park Tories, bars council workers from talking to councillors about employment issues.

The report of the chair of Scrutiny Committee was noteworthy for its almost complete lack of content.

The Council approved without discussion a report on Council Tax Support. Although this put put forward only minor changes it proposed a full review before the 2016-17 financial year.

This follows a report on the same day that revealed that Brent Council had only spent 20% of its local welfare assistance fund which is meant to be crisis support for vulnerable families.

Seething behind the scenes at Brent Council's meeting tonight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly tasteful tweeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Brent Council workers gagged from speaking to councillors over employment discrimination issues

I am, as regular readers will know, a militant opponent of the Tory Party, but I was pleased that the Brondesbury Conservative group raised the issue of an independent investigation into the Brent Council Human Resources department at Full Council last week.

I would of course have much preferred it to be raised by principled members of the Labour group.

It is a call that has also been made by Brent Green Party, Brent Trade Union Council, and Brent Anti Racism Campaign.

I know through messages and phone calls to Wembley Matters that many Brent Council staff do not have confidence in Michael Pavey's internal investigation and that they do not feel they have an avenue for complaints that does not put them at risk of retribution.

Cllr John Warren at Full Council offered staff the opportunity to raise issues with him. He has since received a letter from Brent Council's Legal Department advising him that staff doing so would be in breach of the Brent Officers' Code of Conduct and could put them at risk of disciplinary action:

I am writing, as Deputy Monitoring Officer, following the Full Council meeting on Monday 8th December when you invited employees to contact you confidentially if they wanted to discuss any dissatisfaction they felt or discrimination which they had experienced in the course of their employment.

I am very concerned that encouraging staff to follow this course of action crosses the boundary between the respective roles of Members and Officers in relation to matters concerning the employment of staff.  As you may be aware the Protocol for Members and Officer Relations formed part of the agenda at Standards Committee on Tuesday evening.  The Protocol reminds both Members and Officers of the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct which contains clear restrictions on employees raising matters relating to employment with Members.   By encouraging staff to contact you in the way suggested you are encouraging staff to breach the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct and could place employees at risk of disciplinary action.

I would request that you do not repeat the invitation to employees and, if you are approached by any employees, they are instead advised to raise any issues through the proper communication channels and reminded of the provisions of the Brent Council Officers' Code of Conduct.

This is essentially a gag on any members of staff contacting any councillor to discuss their concerns. It would not be an issue if staff had confidence in the Council's internal procedures but this is clearly not the case.

It is even more important at a time when Cara Davani, who had a key role in the Council's actions that resulted in an Employment Tribunal finding of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal, is managing the process of the restructuring of the Council's senior management and will be handling redundancies arising from the forthcoming budget cuts. An appeal hearing dismissed Brent Coucil's grounds for appeal against the judgment.

An independent investigation is the only way to ensure that staff are heard and justice achieved.