Brent Council and Cara Davani – something has happened!

Guest post from Philip Grant

Wembley Matters readers still following this long-running saga might be interested to know what has happened since the last update I gave at the end of June. LINK

The auditor, Andrew Sayers of KPMG, finally sent his ‘provisional view and material documents’ letters to the five Brent residents, who had objected to the Council’s June 2015 leaving payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani, on 3 August 2017. The final paragraph of his letter reminded me that the “disclosure of information” provisions (Schedule 11) of the relevant legislation still apply to his enquiries. I am therefore restricted as to what I can tell you, as ‘failure to comply with Schedule 11 is capable of amounting to a criminal offence and liable to a fine upon summary conviction.’

When we read his ‘provisional view’, the same word sprang to the minds of three objectors. It was not an expletive, but I can give you a clue without disclosing any of the contents of the letter. The OED definition of the word is: ‘a liquid containing quicklime or powdered chalk, used for painting walls or ceilings etc.’

Still, we were not disheartened, as the auditor’s letter stressed that this was only his provisional view. He had not reached any final view, or decided our objections, and would not do so until he had considered any additional comments or evidence that the objectors or the Council might wish to provide.

However, when I looked at the “material documents” which the auditor had sent with his letter, I found that these did not include any of the documents we had been expecting to receive, since they were handed over to KPMG by the Council last December. There was only one “material document” which did relate to the payment to Ms Davani, and as that document is already “in the public domain” I am allowed to tell you about it, or you can read it for yourself. LINK

Why are the 30 June 2016 minutes of Brent’s Audit Committee a “material document” in considering objections against the £157,610 payment to Cara Davani? Because at item 7 (Draft Statement of Accounts 2015/16) they contain a brief explanation of the reason the payment was made, and of the legal advice on which it was based.

But if a Council Officer had explained everything about the payment in June 2016 (in the first public admission of such a payment, a year after it had been paid), why had five local electors objected in August 2016 to that payment being included in the accounts? Surely the primary documents from May and June 2015 should also be treated as “material documents”, and shown to the objectors so that they could provide comments, and any counter evidence, in support of their objections!

I was not able to persuade the auditor with this argument, when I put it to him on 4 August. Nor did his position on this change when I drew his attention to the relevant guidance issued by the NAO, “Auditor Guidance Note 4” (AGN 04), which he is meant to follow, later in the month. Para. 36 of AGN 04 says:

‘Sharing material information and inviting representations on it is required in public law as the auditor is exercising quasi-judicial powers.’

I was arguing that the primary documents (which the auditor holds) about the £157,610 payment must be “material documents”, so should be shared with the objectors before we made our comments. The auditor said that he would look at our comments (which he had first asked for within three weeks, but then agreed an extra week, with a 31 August “deadline”), and if he then considered those documents to be “material”, he would share them with us and give us the opportunity to comment on them. I summed this up to him as:

‘What you appear to be saying is: 'I won't share material information with you now, but after you have made any representations I might share some of the material information with you (and if I do, I will give you the chance to make some further representations).'

As the “deadline” was fast approaching, the objectors had to submit the best ‘additional comments and evidence’ that we could in the circumstances. One of the points I was able to make was that the summary of the May 2015 legal advice, as given to the Audit Committee, showed that the point the QC had been asked to look at was “unfair dismissal”, if Brent had sacked Cara Davani. At a meeting with the objectors last December, the Chief Executive referred to a document Ms Davani had given to the Council at the time. This strongly suggested that the point the QC should have been asked to look at was “constructive dismissal”, which may well have produced different advice, and not led to any payment to her.

We have not been allowed to see Cara Davani’s “statement of loss”, and even if we had I would not be allowed to tell you what it said, but I did refer to it in a “guest blog” in January. LINK :-

‘We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!’

I can assure you that the objectors have done their best to provide the auditor with information about a pattern of abuses of power at the top of Brent Council from 2012 onwards, which came to a head with the, we allege unlawful, payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani in 2015. I have also provided evidence to show why that payment was really made (and how the Officer who provided the “official” explanation to Audit Committee was, like the Council itself, the victim of a deception).

I have been greatly helped in piecing together my researches over Brent Council and Cara Davani by comments, many of them anonymous, which Wembley Matters readers have made in response to blogs by Martin and myself since 2014. Thank you, everyone, for the parts you have played in allowing the objectors to lay the evidence before the auditor. There is a strong case for the auditor to make a Public Interest Report, to bring this matter into the open, so that key figures at Brent Council, past and present, can be asked to explain their actions, and be held to account. We shall have to wait and see whether Mr Sayers will now make that report.

Philip Grant.

Brent Council and Cara Davani – when (if ever) will we really know what happened?

 

Brent and Kilburn Times June 30th 2016

Guest blog by Philip Grant

Cara Davani – didn’t she leave Brent Council two years ago? And it was a year ago that the Council finally admitted that she had been given a “pay-off” (of £157,610). Surely the enquiry into this must have been sorted out by now? I’m afraid not.

When I last gave an update about “progress” on the investigation of objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts LINK we had been told by the Auditor that he anticipated sharing material documents with the objectors by the end of June. When the agenda for Brent’s Audit Advisory Committee meeting on 26 June appeared on the Council’s website,  KPMG’s “External Audit Progress Report” said that they expected to share the documents, and other material, ‘in July’.

As the Auditor had agreed to share those material documents (which he received from the Council in mid-December) with the objectors, and we had been expecting to get them early in 2017, I asked to speak about this item on the agenda for Monday evening’s meeting, and the committee Chair (David Ewart, an independent member) agreed in advance that I could. I hope that Martin will be able to attach the text of what I said to this blog, so that you can read it in full if you wish to. There were two points that I wished to raise with the committee, and the Chair asked me to deal with them separately. 

The first was the objectors’ disappointment with the lack of progress in KPMG’s enquiries, and our concern that the investigation process might have been changed, without explanation. We were originally told that we would have the chance to make further comments before the Auditor reached any ‘provisional findings and views’. The latest progress report spoke of sharing ‘our provisional view and material documents’ at the same time. I asked the committee to invite the Auditor to clarify the position, and to encourage him to provide a timetable for the remaining steps in his investigation, through to his final decision on the objections.

The Auditor, Andrew Sayers, did not seem to accept that there was any real change from what his predecessor had set out in November 2016. He thought that knowing what his provisional views were would help us and the Council when he shares those views and material documents with us. He still wants any further comments from us, and assured the meeting that his provisional views will be open to change in the light of any further comments and evidence he receives. On how long it was taking, his response seemed to be that he had to do his job properly [I would agree that he should, but does it really need to take so long?]. 

The Auditor seemed to suggest that the material would be shared in about six weeks (so August, rather than July?), but said the timetable after that would depend on what further comments he receives and what further investigations he may need to make, so he could give no indication of when his final decision might be published.

There were murmurings from the committee over how long his investigation was taking, and what it would cost (Mr Sayers did not know how much it had cost so far, but he would write with a figure that could be passed on to committee members). Cllr. Davidson, in particular, was concerned over the costs, and appeared to suggest that KPMG could be carrying out unnecessary work, just to increase their fees.

My second point, asked the committee to recommend that Council Officers consent to Mr Sayers sharing the legal advice with us "in strict confidence". The papers around that advice comprise very ‘material documents’, as they provide the only evidence in support of Brent’s decision to make the payment to Ms Davani.

The Chair asked Brent's Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, to address them. She told the committee, effectively, that "Legal Privilege" was a fundamental principle that should never be breached. She did not appear to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of this investigation, refusal by the Council to allow the objectors access to the documents, in strict confidence, might appear to be unfair.

The Chair asked Mr Sayers whether the lack of consent from the Council was "impeding" his investigation, and the Auditor said that it was not, although it might mean that he had to take legal advice himself over whether to disclose certain documents to the objectors. I am not sure whether committee members realised that this would mean additional costs to the Council for the investigation.

I was allowed a brief reply, but like Mr Sayers, I had to say that I could not disclose the full nature of the allegations in the objection, but that they did involve matters which were 'contrary to law', and that this was more than a possible query over whether a QC's advice was correct.

There was no real discussion or vote on what action the committee should take over my second point. It was almost like a shrug of the shoulders to say "well, we can't go against the advice of the Chief Legal Officer".

I was probably naïve to think that the Audit Advisory Committee might, just might, be persuaded to recommend that the legal advice, which the Council claims as justification for the £157,610 “pay-off” to Cara Davani, could be shared with the objectors. But at least I tried to move things forward towards getting this long-running matter resolved, and the minutes of last Monday evening’s meeting will hopefully record the main points of what was said.

So, Wembley Matters readers, and the rest of Brent’s citizens, will have to carry on waiting for details of why the payment was made, if that is found to be different from the Council version(s), to be officially revealed. You can be sure, however, that the five local electors who objected to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts will do their best to see that the truth comes out, eventually.

Philip Grant.

Objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – lawfulness of Cara Davani “pay-off” still to be resolved

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It appears that I was being optimistic when I gave an update on this subject in January LINK  referring to “progress” in dealing with the objections by five local electors to Brent Council’s accounts for 2015/16. I am writing this article to keep interested “Wembley Matters” readers informed about the current situation.

Four months ago, the objectors were waiting to receive some Brent Council documents from the Auditor, so that we could make further comments in support of our objections, and in reply to the Council’s response of 14 December 2016 to our objections. We are still waiting!

Progress on investigating the objections has not been helped by a change in the person at Messrs KPMG who is acting as Auditor. We were informed of the change at the same time this was disclosed in a report by KPMG to Brent’s Audit Committee on 20 March:

‘We would like to inform the Audit Committee that Andrew Sayers, a partner based in our London office, is replacing Philip Johnstone as the engagement lead on the audit. Andrew has already met with Carolyn Downs, Althea Loderick and Conrad Hall to help ensure a smooth handover from Philip. Andrew has a wide experience of audit and is currently the engagement lead at five other London boroughs as well as KPMG’s national Lead Partner for Public Sector audit.’

Mr Sayers did confirm, when first writing to the objectors, that he would share with us all the documents which he considered to be material to his decision on our objections, although he made clear that these might not include those ‘subject to professional legal privilege’. I made the following comments in my reply:

‘That legal advice, the circumstances around and timing of when it was given, and who it was given to, are all key factors in determining whether the payment to Ms Davani was lawful, as the Council claim, or unlawful. Why are Brent's senior officers afraid to allow the objectors to see the evidence of that legal advice, in confidence and purely for the purposes of your investigation, as auditor, into our objections? If they are confident that this "legal advice" document will stand up to scrutiny, they should consent to you sharing it with us; I am copying this email to Carolyn Downs and Conrad Hall, in the hope that they will now give that consent.’

I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive on 23 March, asking if she would, on behalf of Brent Council, ‘now consent to the auditor sharing with myself and the other objectors (subject to safeguards over confidentiality, and solely for use in respect of his investigation into our objections) the legal advice on which the Council's justification for the £157,610 payment we are objecting to is based.’ 

I hoped that the answer would be “yes”, but if it was “no”, I asked for some further information about the meeting at which the “legal advice” had been given, and the notes of that meeting (which appear to be the only documentary record of what that advice was). I hoped that this information would be provided ‘as a matter of course, in assisting with a proper resolution of the auditor's enquiries’, but asked Ms Downs to treat it as an FoI request if that was not the case.

The reply I received (not from Ms Downs, but from a Senior Officer on behalf of the Council) was very abrasive, but did provide the information I had requested. The “legal advice” had been given in May 2015 by Counsel to Christine Gilbert, then interim Chief Executive, who was accompanied by one other Senior Officer (but, surprisingly, not the Chief Legal Officer or any member of her legal team) who prepared the notes. The reply also referred to a decision notice, issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office on 22 March 2017, using this to justify why the legal advice should not be disclosed to the objectors.

That decision by the ICO was to reject a complaint by Cllr. John Warren against Brent Council’s refusal to disclose the “legal advice” used to justify the payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani, under an FoI request which he made in July 2016. Cllr. Warren had claimed that, although this was covered by “legal privilege”, it should be disclosed ‘in the public interest’. However, the ICO did refer to the Auditor’s investigation into the objections against the £157k payment, and made clear that this was a separate statutory process, so that Brent is wrong to claim that the FoI decision also precludes disclosure (in confidence) by Mr Sayers to the objectors.

The ICO report included a summary of the types of information which Brent has, and which would have been disclosed if Cllr. Warren’s FoI request or complaint had been upheld, saying:

‘The council stated that the withheld information comprises of email correspondence between council officers and the council's barrister relating to the termination of a, now, former employee's contract of employment and associated file notes.’

I have pointed out to the Council, and the Auditor, that this includes more documents than the objectors were led to believe (in November and December 2016) existed, and that all of these documents should be made available to the Auditor, if they had not already been provided to him. (Hopefully, they may still be shared with the objectors!).

I understand that the Auditor also asked Brent, in mid-March, to provide some further information and documentation (even though KPMG had asked them last November to provide all of the documents relevant to our objections). I do not know whether that is part of the reason for the continuing delay. 

When nothing further had been heard from the Auditor by early May, I wrote to ask when the objectors could expect to have the documents shared with us. Mr Sayers has replied that he anticipates sharing the documents material to his decision with us by the end of June, but has not indicated why it should take so long. 

The end of June 2017 will mark two years since Brent’s disgraced Director of HR walked away with £157,610 of Council Tax-payers’ money (as well as having her share of the Employment Tribunal settlement and legal costs in the Rosemarie Clarke case paid by Brent on her behalf). The objectors are having to be patient, but we will see this through. The sad thing is that key figures at Brent Council still seem determined to cover-up the details of what went wrong (and who was responsible for it), even though they finally admitted last year that ‘this had been a very unhappy episode’.

Philip Grant

 

Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – progress on objections to the Cara Davani “pay-off

Guest blog by Philip Grant

As it is a couple of months since I wrote about the latest developments in “the Cara Davani Saga” LINK , I thought that the many “Wembley Matters” readers who are interested in this case might like an update on what has been happening.

The Auditor at Messrs KPMG dealing with the Council’s accounts to 31 March 2016 is still considering the objections from five local electors against Brent’s payment of £157,610 to its former Director of HR, so I cannot pass on any details which are still confidential at this stage. However, I hope that they will eventually come into the public domain when the Auditor has completed his enquiries.

In my guest blog of 19 November I said that I was willing to discuss the issues raised with Brent Council, along with the other objectors, as encouraged to do by the Auditor. I did ask to see a number of documents relevant to the payments I had objected to, although my request was rejected, in respect of most of them, by Brent’s Chief Finance Officer. Despite this, along with three other objectors, I met with him and the Council’s Chief Executive on the evening of 6 December 2016. The fifth objector, Cllr. John Warren, could not make that meeting, but had met with them separately earlier that day.

Although no agreement was reached, the discussions took place in a constructive atmosphere, and helped both sides to understand the other’s position. The objectors explained to Ms Downs and Mr Hall why they felt that the £157k paid to Ms Davani was wholly inappropriate expenditure for the Council to incur, and that this was money which should instead have been used to provide services for people in Brent.

The Chief Executive agreed that the whole episode did not reflect positively on the Council, and she did not dispute that elements had been poorly managed, but said that steps have since been taken to ensure that the organisation no longer operates in this way.

Much of the meeting was spent going through the list of documents I had requested to see, and discussing points arising from these. Mr Hall explained that the Council felt it could not allow the objectors to see any legally privileged advice or confidential documents (which was most of them!). However, the auditor would be provided with all of the information that is available, so that he can reach a decision based on that evidence.

Although we could not see the documents, the discussions did provide some interesting information.

We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!

One surprising fact was that for many items I had asked to see, no documented evidence had yet been found, even though it should have existed. Ms Downs agreed it was unthinkable that key decisions, such as whether to take disciplinary action against Cara Davani in 2014 or whether to make a settlement agreement with her in 2015, had not been discussed with the Council Leader by the then interim Chief Executive, even though the final decision would be for Christine Gilbert to make.

The absence of any evidence of those discussions suggests that either they were entirely verbal (with no written note made of them), or that they had “off the record” written communications, or even that evidence was deleted or shredded before Ms Gilbert left Brent Council. [Dear Reader: If you can provide any definite information (not just speculation) on this matter, and are willing to share it not only with me, but also with Carolyn Downs and the Auditor, it would be helpful if you could do so, please.]

Following the meeting, Brent Council sent the Auditor its formal response to our objections on 14 December. The Council maintains its view: ‘… that the settlement payment to the former HR Director was made lawfully and that, under the circumstances that existed at the time it was agreed, it was the most appropriate way forward in order to protect the Council’s financial position.’ It recommends to the Auditor ‘… that you should either dismiss the Objections, or at any rate conclude that you should take no action in respect of them.’

Brent’s response concludes by referring to a separate letter sent to the Auditor, attaching the confidential and legally privileged documents, and makes clear that the Council does not consent to these being disclosed to anyone else (i.e. the objectors!).

I wrote to the Auditor about these documents, pointing out that he had invited the objectors to make further comments, and that it was unfair to expect us to do so without being able to see the evidence on which those comments needed to be based. Just before Christmas he did reply to say that he would share with us all of the documents which he considered material to his decision. We have not seen any of these documents yet.

The sticking point is over whether the objectors should be allowed to see the legal advice, which appears to provide the sole justification for the Council making the £157k payment to Cara Davani. The Auditor could not force Brent to disclose that advice to him, but the Council did so voluntarily, and there is a provision which allows the Auditor to disclose information: ‘…except where the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of …’ his functions as Auditor.

As well as giving an assurance that I would keep the information confidential, I have pointed out that disclosing the legal advice would actually assist the effective performance of his function as Auditor, by giving me the opportunity to either satisfy myself that the legal advice, and actions taken by the Council as a result of it, were lawful, or to explain to him why the evidence supported my objection that the payment involved was unlawful.

What I can tell you about the legal advice is that, although it is said to have been given by an employment law QC, it was not a written legal opinion from him, but a note made by a Brent Council officer of what the QC is claimed to have said. That advice was summarised by the Chief Finance Officer to Brent’s Audit Committee on 30 June 2016, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting:

‘Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.’ 

Once we have been given the opportunity to see all the documents which the Auditor does disclose to us, all five objectors can submit their further comments. One of the points that I am likely to make is that there appears to be no evidence that Brent dismissed, or even attempted to dismiss, Cara Davani, so how could the Council be ‘… found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal’ for something that it didn’t do?

I’m afraid that readers will have to wait for the Auditor to complete his enquiries before we discover the outcome of this final attempt to get something done about what many of us feel was an injustice. I hope that the result will be worth waiting for.

Philip Grant.

Public excluded from yet another key Brent Council discussion

The KPMG auditor is still investigating  objections to Brent Council's 2015-16 accounts by six local residents over the payment to former Director of HR Cara Davani LINK  and PcW has issued a 'limited assurance' verdict on Brent's Planning procedures LINK and drawn attention to potential for fraud.

Given that context there is  surely public interest in Brent's interal audit and investigation arrangements but the public have been  excluded from hearing consideration of these matters at the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee on January 30th.

The General Purposes Committee has hithertoo been made up of members of the Brent Cabinet, plus one opposition member, an arrangement that has itself drawn criticism.  The agenda item on the Council's website today still includes Cllr Mashari rather than her successor Cllr Tom Miller. Cllr Reg Colwill is the opposition member. Any change of membership will  have to be approved by Full Council at the January 23rd Meeting.

Brent Council External Audit certificate delayed while objections to accounts are investigated

The report of the external auditors, KPMG, is tabled for the Brent Council Audit Commitee on Thursday September 22nd, 7pm, Brent Civic Centre.

KPMG note on page 9 LINK:

In order for us to issue an audit certificate, we are required to have completed all our responsibilities relating to the financial year. We are not in a position to issue our audit certificate with the audit opinion as we have received six objections to the accounts from local electors.

We are currently in the process of considering these objections and assess the work we need to fulfil our statutory duties.

It is likely that some of these objection relate to the Council's £157,610 pay-off to ex-head of Brent Human Resources, Cara Davani. The auditor was asked to make a public interest report under Section 24 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act on the payment LINK:

This is the submission by Cllr John Warren:

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

Auditor asked to make a Public Interest Report on Davani pay-off

The Cara Davani issue just won't go and the news that she now runs a 'boutique hotel' in Suffolk LINK isn't going to exactly endear her to those who have been seeking out the truth about her £157k pay-off.

Now Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group, has asked Brent Council's Auditor, KPMG, to make a Public Interest Report under Section 24  of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Dear Mr. Johnstone, 

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

As is required by law the request has also been submitted to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer, Conrad Hall.

If anyone else wishes to make a request it must be written in a proper form to the Auditor by August 11th. Here is some guidance from  Philip Grant submitted earlier today as a blog comment:

if you are on the voters list for Brent, you have a right, if you wish, to object to the expenditure of £157,610 by Brent Council, BUT ONLY if you submit your objection in a proper form by Thursday 11 August.

If you do want to do this, it can be done by email to the auditor at KPMG: philip.johnstone@kpmg.co.uk , and a copy must also be sent to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer: conrad.hall@brent.gov.uk .

Your email would need to say that it is about the accounts of the London Borough of Brent for 2015/16, and that you are objecting under Section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

You need to say that you are an elector in Brent, give your full postal address, and (if you know them) the name of the Ward in the borough and the constituency (e.g. Brent North, Brent Central or Hampstead & Kilburn) in which you are registered to vote.

You must say what you believe is wrong about the accounts and why you believe they are wrong. If it is the £157k payment, you should say that you are objecting to the compensation for loss of office payment of £157,610 to Brent's former Human Resources Director, shown at Note 30 (Senior Employees' Remuneration) in the accounts, and that you think it is wrong to include this amount in the accounts because it was not a proper payment for the Council to make.

In support of your objection, you need to explain why you think the £157k should not have been paid, and provide what evidence you can. Based on your comment, you could say that Cara Davani should already have been sacked for gross misconduct after the Tribunal findings against her (Note: these were NOT for racial discrimination, but for victimising Rosemarie Clarke and for wrongly having her suspended for misconduct just because Rosemarie had complained about being bullied and harassed by her); that she should not have been given a compensation payment for leaving (or at most only a small one, quoting the normal redundancy rates from your comment); and that the £157k payment shows she was being treated more favourably than she should have been because she was a crony of Christine Gilbert.

You don't need to provide much evidence, as you can also say that you are aware that there has been another objection about the leaving payment to Cara Davani, and that you would like any evidence provided in any other objections to be used in support of your objection as well.

At the end of your objection email, you would need to ask the auditor to investigate the payment you have objected to, and either:

1) ask the Court to declare the payment unlawful, under Section 28, if he thinks there is a strong enough case for this; or,

2) make a public interest report, under Section 24, giving his views on the payment and asking Brent Council to take action to remedy it.