Brent Labour fail to grasp nettle of Davani pay-off

I missed last night's Brent Council meeting but checking the Twitter feed it is clear that Labour made no attempt to address the issue of a pay-off to Cara Davani, controversial head of Brent HR, who resigned recently:

Ahead of the meeting Philip Grant had writtent the following email to his ward councillors:

Dear Fryent Ward councillors,

You have probably heard that on Wednesday a Council spokesperson confirmed that Cara Davani, Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, is leaving the Council at the end of June, to take a career break. If you had not heard, you can read the announcement, and reaction to it, at:

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/cara-devani-leaving-brent-council-to.html

While the Council’s statement praises ‘the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years’, it does not mention Ms Davani’s misdeeds, such as her vicious actions against a Brent employee as shown by findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. That case has already cost Brent Council probably a six-figure sum in legal fees, and will land the Council with a further bill, quite possibly a seven-figure sum (i.e. more than £1 million) in compensation, damages and costs when the remedy hearing makes its decision (likely to be in about three months time).

Given this background, and the serious damage done to Brent’s reputation by the finding that the Council “racially discriminated” against Ms Clarke, I am seriously concerned (as are many others) about the financial terms on which Ms Davani may be leaving the Council’s employment. She is leaving at the end of June, and I would not seek to interfere with her salary entitlement up to that date (even though any decent person would have resigned when the judgment was published last September, and any other Chief Executive would have either insisted on that resignation or taken immediate action to dismiss her for gross misconduct). However, that last salary payment should be the only further financial reward that Cara Davani receives from Brent Council.

There should be no other “payoff” or leaving payment of whatever description made to her. If Ms Davani has been “persuaded” to leave now, there is talk of a possible “compromise package” - which, I understand, following changes made to HR procedures during Ms Davani’s reign, would normally be agreed on by either the Director of HR or the Chief Executive. As she is the Director of HR, the Chief Executive (Christine Gilbert) is her friend and former colleague from Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted, who she helped to bring into Brent in 2012, the interim Director of HR is to be Mildred Phillips (another former colleague, first brought into Brent as an interim consultant, then given a permanent position and promoted by Ms Davani to be her deputy), it would not be possible for the amount of any payment, even if one were deserved (which it most certainly would not), to be arrived at on an arm’s length basis. It may be that she is leaving now, while she still has “friends in high places”.

[And please don’t suggest that the terms of any payment might be agreed instead by Brent’s Principal Employment Lawyer - Ms Davani’s personal and business partner, Andy Potts - or by its Chief Operating Officer, Lorraine Langham, another former colleague of Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets and Ofsted. It is the extent of this “cronyism” at high levels in Brent Council that has previously allowed Ms Davani to get away with her actions against Rosemarie Clarke, and other now-former employees of the Council.]

The is another financial aspect of Cara Davani’s leaving Brent which councillors need to ensure is handled properly. The full title of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case is Ms RC Clarke v. 1) The London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. Ms Davani is a separately named respondent in the case, even though it appears that she did not have separate legal representation at the full Tribunal hearing, with Brent’s barrister (at Brent’s expense) effectively defending her as well. There should be no agreement made under which Brent agrees to pay, or indemnify Ms Davani in respect of, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally as the second respondent in the case. I also believe that Brent should make clear to Ms Davani that she will need to arrange and pay for her own legal representation in the case after she leaves the Council’s employment at the end of June. 

At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent’s Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council’s HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent’s most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.

I hope you will agree with the two propositions which I have highlighted, and that you will take early action to see that these are put in place. I would suggest that you could ask for “Departure from the Council of the Director of HR and Administration” as an item to be put on the agenda for the Full Council meeting on 22 June, with the current Chief Executive (or her representative, if Ms Gilbert is not available to attend) making a statement about Ms Davani’s departure, and then giving members the chance to comment or ask questions. The Chief Executive should give at least outline details of any planned payments, over and above her basic salary to 30 June 2015, which are proposed, and in particular, be asked to confirm that Ms Davani will be personally liable for any award made in respect of her as the second respondent in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and that Brent will not pay, or indemnify her in any way, in respect of such an award against Cara Davani personally. I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, for her information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and let me have at least a brief response to my comments, which reflect the views of many people, even though I am the one articulating them to you. Please feel free to forward this email to any of your fellow councillors, if you wish to seek their views before deciding what action you should take in response to it. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

Latest on Brent Chief Executive appointment

Following various rumours circulating about the appointment of the new Chief Executive of Brent Council last week I sought clarification from the Brent Council Press Office.  This is their statement:

The (CEO) interview process has not yet taken place therefore no appointment has been made.   The new Chief Executive will be appointed by a panel of elected members later this month and this appointment will be subject to ratification by Full Council on 22 June 2015.  As yet Christine Gilbert has not agreed a leaving date.

I can confirm that Lorraine Langham, Chief Operating Officer, has not applied for the role.

The Council will make a public statement once an appointment has been confirmed.

Does the Rotherham Report resonate in Brent?

An ex Brent Council worker, forced out of her job and silenced by a compromise agreement, has sent me Eric Pickles’ summary of the Casey LINK  report into Rotherham Council.  She remarked, ‘familiar, isn’t it?’

Of course not everything applies equally to Brent, and some perhaps not at all, but there are enough similarities to be of concern. Make up your own mind about which apply.

·      Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council

·      There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness which has cemented the council’s failures.

·      Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion

·      The council is currently incapable of tackling its weaknesses, without a sustained intervention.

·      The council lacks political leadership.

·      It is directionless and is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be, and how it will get there.

·      It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members to properly represent the interests of local people and businesses.

·      Some councillors, have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or their positions of responsibility. For example the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistle-blowers.

·      It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.

·      Management is ineffective.

·      There is no cohesive senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive.

·      There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around.

·      There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in Children’s Services.

·      Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and don’t get translated into change.

The Casey Report finds overall that Rotherham Council failed to Listen, Learn, Challenge and Improve. They found insufficient evidence of clear managerial leadership, not of political leadership to ensure officers were held to account for delivery. Members blamed officers for failure to progress and officers blamed members for lack of leadership.

The Report shows what might have been achieved by an independent report into Brent Council, rather than the internal Pavey report. A request for a review, sent by Nan Tewani to Eric Pickles, has still to receive a response. LINK

Inspectors saw regular reports to the Cabinet and Scrutiny committees, but not the effective challenge we would expect from elected Members. The notion of challenge has been misunderstood and misinterpreted as bullish questioning. Challenge means setting aspirational targets, knowing how far to stretch the organisation, asking searching questions, drilling down into information and data, ensuring targets are kept to and agreed actions implemented. It also means recognising organisational inertia and doing something about it; identifying when people are struggling, finding out why and getting alongside them, overcoming barriers and working out solutions.P65

One illustration of this disconnection between vision, plans and practice is the Council’s equalities plan and single equality scheme. The documents are clear,aspirational and include a summary of good practice. However, we found that this was not rooted in the day-to-day experience of staff. We set these matters out i more detail elsewhere in considering political correctness and race. The point here is  that whilst plans and policies look appropriate, or even good, they bear little relationship to what inspectors found at the frontline. (p70)

Inspectors were told that  in Children’s Services only “60-80% of staff are having Performance Reviews, with HR spot checking more than anything”. Inspectors did not find this to be at all adequate. We would expect the vast majority of staff, with few exceptions, to be having performance reviews so they know what is expected of  them and how their work contributes to the delivery of the Council’s plans. Inspectors concluded that some staff did not understand the Council’s vision; a number were clearly confused about what was expected of them and this hampered their performance in terms of day to-day service delivery (p70)

Note: Pavey found that in two ‘non-management’ workshops, 45% and 30% respectively of Brent staff had not had an appraisal in the last 12 months and more than half had not had sight of their team or service plan.

Scrutiny in Brent has been an issue since the incoming Labour administration reduced it to one Committee in May 2014. It was also an issue in Rotherham:

However, it is not clear how effective it has been in holding Cabinet Members and senior officers to account for their individual performance and decision-making  Inspectors could not find much evidence of how scrutiny had changed practice or policy making. P75

Where Councillors have scrutinised other agencies, eg aspects of health, they have been more effective and robust. However, not enough Members really know how to get underneath information presented by officers, and the organisation has not properly resourced and facilitated effective scrutiny. It was generally acknowledged that the scrutiny team was small and disconnected from the Senior Leadership Team.  P77

Inspectors concluded that overview and scrutiny had been deliberately weakened and under-valued. The structures and processes look superficially adequate, but the  culture has been one where challenge and scrutiny were not welcome. P76

There are also findings that relate to the budget process and planning cuts:

However, Inspectors found that the overall approach to finance planning was not based on a clear and political strategic vision. The Improvement Board recognises this and is working to develop one. In the absence of this vision, the budget process has been led by finance. All departments were asked to find a quota of savings, with some protection for frontline services. This approach has delivered the bottom line, but with serious consequences. For example, some services no longer have the capacity to function effectively. We were particularly concerned about the level of funding for central regulatory functions and those which will drive transformation, like legal services, organisational development, strategy, and resources to ensure community cohesion. P83

It is  in the area of Human Resources that comparing Rotherham with Brent becomes most telling:

Generally, inspectors found the Council too willing to take the path of least resistance rather than ensuring it did the right thing for individuals or the organisation as a whole. We have concluded that whilst the Council has followed its own procedures, these have not always ensured that it has taken, and continues to take, appropriate action against staff potentially guilty of gross misconduct. P130

Settlements can leave issues unresolved in the case of grievances. For example, one staff member was offered severance when she complained of being bullied. There were counter claims against her by others saying she was a bully. Because the case was not properly investigated, it is unclear whether the matter was resolved by the complainant’s departure. Where severance is used instead of disciplinary action procedures being followed through, it sends the wrong message to the workforce and managers. It may not be an appropriate use of public funds, particularly where dismissal could have occurred if due process had been followed. This was acknowledged by the Council. P132

The above point is particularly interesting in the light of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case and the different treatment of a white member of the Corporate Management Team  which led to the finding of racial discrimination as well as victimisation and constructive dismissal.

Grievance cases were too frequently dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. In two cases where this had occurred, Inspectors considered there was clearly some evidence of poor conduct by managers. In another case, Inspectors noted that the disciplinary process appeared to have been concluded without seeking evidence from all third party witnesses. 

At times, little effort appeared to have been put into seriously exploring issues raised through grievances. For example, a complaint about potential institutionalised racism was apparently dismissed without investigation on the basis that it was ‘unsuitable for a grievance process’. We make no comment on the merit of this particular case, except that it should have been properly looked into. P133

Whistle-blowing and the treatment of whistle-blowers was an issue in Rotherham as it is in Brent: 

Inspectors have concluded that RMBC goes to some lengths to cover up information, and silence whistle-blowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so for others.

“I’m just worried about reprisals of a personal nature.” (A councillor)

“We’ve all been made aware of the (whistle blowing) procedure,but no-one dares ever use it, because if they did, eventually it would come back to bite them in the backside and they would be bullied out of the organisation”. (A whistle-blower P134)

Staff in RMBC have spoken to Inspectors of being afraid to speak out, told to keep

quiet, instructed to cover up, and of a culture where “if you want to keep your job,

you keep your head down and your mouth shut.” 

A significant number of people we interviewed were clearly afraid of what might happen to them if they spoke out. 

Inspectors considered detailed evidence in three specific cases where people who blew the whistle felt they were marginalised, bullied, harassed and victimised as a result. 

In two cases, whistle-blowers claimed they were deliberately restructured out, one

from the Council and the other from a provider working closely with the Council

under a contract. In a third case, following a similar pattern of marginalisation the

person left. Inspectors recognise that sometimes whistle-blowers may have other agendas and those who approach inspections can be aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. We have borne this in mind when reviewing the cases presented to us and have nevertheless formed a view that in these specific cases there was sufficient truth in the matters raised to be a cause of public concern.

It is clear from the report that correct paper policies and procedures are not enough. It is what happens day to day, and people's experience of management's handling of the big issues of respectful treatment and equality which is important and that is what has concerned Brent Council staff.

One person at least will be able to see if this report resonates with Brent. Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets, and recently appointed Chief Operating Officer for Brent, was one of the inspection team for the Casey Report.

 

Brent Odds-On for Private Eye Awards 2015

Local bookies braced for surge in betting          

                                                

Guest blog by I.L.Wager

Brent Staff Achievement Awards are not the only annual awards likely to prove a continuing embarrassment to Brent Council’s Butt, Gilbert and Davani over the coming months. The Brent Leadership’s attempt to figure in Private Eye magazine’s regular Rotten Borough Awards ( given to local councils who have demonstrated particular talents in the areas of corruption, greed, stupidity or cronyism) failed last year as they left their trump card ( the Rotten Boroughs article on the racist bullying verdict, jobs-for-the-girls, inflated salaries, romance in high places etc) too late in the year to overtake boroughs like Tower Hamlets and Rotherham who had made the most impressive early running. Not wanting to make the same mistake again, Brent have put down an early marker for the 2015 Cash for Cronyism category by getting the following article onto the Rotten Boroughs page of this week’s edition of Private Eye:

‘A heartfelt welcome back to Lorraine Langham, newly-appointed £140k ‘chief operating officer’ at the London borough of Brent. Ms Langham made frequent appearances in Rotten Boroughs in the Noughties, thanks to the umbilical link she appeared to have with her chum Christine Gilbert, wife of disgraced former Labour minister Tony ‘Second Home’ McNulty.

In the early Noughties, when Gilbert was chief executive of Tower Hamlets council, Langham was its communications supremo. Then in 2006, Gilbert became the boss of Ofsted and Langham was appointed director of corporate services. Now Lorraine has joined senior management at Brent following a ‘restructuring’ overseen by (amazing coincidence) the council’s ‘interim’ chief executive…….Christine Gilbert.   Small world!’ 

An unflashy, solid start from Team Brent but timing is all, and with the Failed-Rosemarie-Clarke- Appeal-Waste-of-Money story soon to come, and who knows what else up the sleeves of Butt/Gilbert/Davani/Langham, the smart money is beginning to take Mo’s girls’ chances for silverware in 2015  Very Seriously Indeed.

                                                                      Go Team Brent!

Will 'cronyism' allegations re-emerge after new Brent Council appointment?

I heard yesterday that Lorraine Langham had been offered one of the newly created Corporate Management Team jobs at Brent Council after interview.  The job of Chief Operating Officer is part of the senior management restructuring carried out by Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani. It is a one year fixed term appointment at salary of £125-142k. LINK

The restructuring saw the departure, with compensation, of Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement and Ben Spinks, Assistant Chief Executive Officer, over the Christmas holiday.

I sought confirmation of the appointment from Brent Council press office at 9.30am this morning but they have still not got back to me at 2,15pm. However, I do think the appointment, if it has been made, is important background to the deliberations of the General Purposes Committee which will be discussing Michael Pavey's HR review at 6pm this evening.

Lorraine Langham, like several of the present CMT, has previouslly worked for Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted. (See table below). Like Gilbert and Davani she also has her own private company. She is no stranger to controversy over her alleged friendship with Christine Gilbert as this hit the headlines in 2007 and again in February last year. LINK

The Daily Express reported:

In 2006 the wife of Labour minister Tony McNulty, Christine Gilbert, was appointed as Chief Inspector of Schools at the watchdog.

Within a year, Ms Gilbert had appointed a number of former colleagues to key positions within Ofsted.

Ms Gilbert - the former chief executive of Tower Hamlets council - recruited her friend Lorraine Langham to be Ofsted's £120,000-a-year director of corporate services.

Ms Langham had worked for Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets as communications chief through a company she ran called Verve Communications.

That company was paid £923,000 from Tower Hamlets over a two-year period.

The then-MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, George Galloway, said at the time:  "You have a situation where this woman is a propagandist for probably the worst council in Britain and, lo and behold, she gets a job with her best pal.

"There is not a whiff of cronyism, there is a stench of cronyism.

"You would have thought Labour would have learned something but, clearly, they believe they are above scrutiny."

Ms Gilbert and Ofsted denied the allegation at the time, saying Ms Langham had been appointed after a thorough and transparent recruitment process.

Ms Langham remains Ofsted’s chief operating officer.

I am sure that this was also a 'thorough and transparent recruitment process' and that Brent HR made sure any connections and associations were declared.

Tony McNulty is a Labour Party activist working hard for a Labour General Election victory in Brent and Christine Gilbert is Brent's neutral Returning Officer.

For those losing track of Brent Council's version of 'Only Connect' here is a useful table:

-->

Name	Brent Position	Tower Hamlets position	Ofsted Position	Private companies
Christine Gilbert	Acting Chief Executive (current)	Chief Executive	Chief Inspector	Christine Gilbert Associates
Cara Davani	Director of Human Resources (current) Drew up Gilbert’s contract Second respondent in Employment Tribunal Case	Director Human Resources	Organisation change and HR Consultant	Cara Davani Ltd
Clive Heaphy	Director of Finance (left Brent after Gross Misconduct charges withdrawn.) Drew up Cara Davani’s contract, Now at HS2. His treatment was contrasted with that of Rosemarie Clarke in  the Employment Tribunal Judgment and was the basis of the Racial Discrimination finding		Interim Director of Finance
Thomas Cattermole	Head of Executive and Members’ Service (current)		Christine Gilbert’s Executive Assistant
Lorraine Langham	Chief Operating Officer (Current TBC)	Various interim roles	Director of Corporate Services	Verve Communications

The membership of the General Purposes Committee (if there are no substitutions) is exactly the same as the Cabinet except that Cllr Mashari is not a member of GP. Cllr Suresh Kansagara, leader of the Kenton Conservatives joins his Labour colleagues on GP.