Philip Grant: Open letter to Brent Council on Equalities

Guest blog by Philip Grant. The Equalities Committee agenda and papers can be found HERE

 

Open Letter to Equalities Committee, 9 July 2015

Dear Councillors Pavey, Harrison, Kansagra, Tatler and Thomas,

Congratulations on the first meeting of this new committee next Monday, and my best wishes for its efforts to help improve equalities and HR management at Brent Council. I will not be able to attend that meeting in person, so have not asked to speak as a Deputation at it, but there are points which I would like to make in respect of both main items on your agenda. I will set these out below in this open letter, and hope that you will be able to find time to read my views, and take them into account in your discussions.

Item 5 – Equalities and HR review: action plan

Cllr. Pavey is aware of my views on this matter, but I need to set them out for other committee members, and by way of introduction to my second point below. I had hoped to make this point to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April 2015, but was not allowed to present my Deputation there.

The point relates to Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of equalities-hr-review-app2].  This was prepared by Cara Davani, until recently Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’.  

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposed. This reads:
  

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’ 

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give.  

You may consider that such a concern is far-fetched, but in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case (which Cllr. Pavey’s review was set up to learn the lessons from), a key factor
in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment in that case it says: 

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made.’ 

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence. It is quite likely that one or more of those witnesses was willing to commit perjury in order to cover up who had made the decision, and why it was made, in an attempt to conceal from the Tribunal facts that would have added to the evidence in support of Ms Clarke’s claim.

I do not believe that this was an isolated case of fabricated or false evidence being used by Brent Council in Employment Tribunal cases. I have heard, from someone close to the former Brent Libraries employee involved, although I do not know the full facts or have evidence 

to support the accusation, that false evidence was given at a Tribunal where Brent was “successful” in defending a claim against it for unfair dismissal. In another case (see my P.S. at the end of this letter for details), Brent had to concede a claim against it for unfair dismissal when it realised that its false evidence would not stand up to close examination by the Tribunal.

I would strongly suggest that the “success criteria” I referred to above should be deleted from the Action Plan. “Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would suggest that the “criteria” should be:  

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:  ‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’

Duffy claims he was punished by Butt & Co for saving council tax payers up to £500k

Councillor John Duffy (Labour Kilburn) reveals in his blog today LINK that he is snubbed by the Council's Labour leadership and some other members of the Labour group scarcely speak to him. 

This is despite his vigilance over the green waste contract that was out-sourced to Veolia.  Duffy successfully challenged a clause that gave Veolia any income from the scheme once the collection target of £400k had been achieved. His claim that this would be illegal was eventually supported by the Chief Finance Officer despite Duffy initially getting the brush off from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council when he raised concerns.

Duffy says:

You may think Brent Council Labour group thanks me for this. No the leadership of Brent Council Labour group are unforgiving that I forced this amendment, they took me off all committees; many of the Labour group hardly talk to me or shy away. They seat me next to the Tory group (a fate worse than death) as they believe by forcing the amendment I undermined their authority. One member of the Cabinet accused me of bullying officers because I would not let it drop. I am not allowed to speak at full council. If I do members of the cabinet heckle me.

Cllr Duffy claims that the Council could benefit by up to £500k  in contrast to the council tax money that Veolia would have handed to the contractor. He is concerned, however, that the additional money will be spent on Council vanity projects rather than supporting vital services.

Concluding his posting Duffy says he is going on holiday but on his return will  reveal why St Patrick's Day may not be coming to Brent and 'the tale of the missing nomination'.

Complacency at Cabinet as controversy swept under the carpet

Preston Community Library representatives spoke at Cabinet tonight on the issue of Brent Council's new Property and Asset Strategy.   They were concerned that the community library they now have up and running in the building, which provides many services to the local community apart from lending books,  should not be affected by the strategy which states:

Fundamentally the strategy moves away from a presumption to dispose outright of property towards one of retaining and acquiring assets with a view to maximising revenue potential.

Muhammed Butt, leader of the council said that the  council also recognised the importance of social value of property, rather than just monetary value.

Several Cabinet members praised the campaign which had been promised the Preston library building at a peppercorn rent.  However Cllr Moher indicated that discussions were taking place on the use of part of the building to provide additional school places.

Clearly there will be some difficult decisions when weighing up any conflict between monetary and social values in a period of budgetary cuts.

Ex councillor James Powney wrote on his blog:

The new strategy has two apparently contradictory aims.  One is to maximise value through renting property.  The second is maximise "social value" through renting below market rates to worthy causes.  Of course this all takes place in an environment where the Council's income from fees & charges, Council Tax and government grant will all be in decline.  Inevitably, this locks Brent Council into cutting public services to the maximum extent possible, which I suspect is not a policy that the majority of those who voted in May 2014 would support (although it is very much what the newly elected Tory government supports).

There are likely to be a number of Community Asset Transfers with voluntary organisations running services from former Brent buildings. 

Cabinet approved the Strategy Report's recommendations which Cllr Pavey claimed marked a 'massive' change in Council policy - but he does tend to suffer from superlative inflation.

They went on to approve authority to tender for a Direct Payments Service contract for adult and children's social care. Cllr Hirani argued that this would enable better working conditions and wages as it would do away with the profit requirement of agency providers.

The Council is expecting an increase of 400 people on Direct Payments over the next three years, a total of 1,127.

Cabinet approved the award of the Local HealthWatch Service contract to CommUNITY Barnet, Cllr Pavey remarked that the current HealthWatch has been well-intentioned but ineffective. It had not been successful in getting community engagement and representing patients.

There were similar remarks about the youth service when the Cabinet discussed the £1m cut it is making which will result in further demands on the voluntary and faith sectors.  In answer to Cllr Mashari who asked if this represented a move away from a universal youth service, Cllr Ruth Moher said she doubted if Brent had such a service at present and that the present service was not coherent, it had developed rather than was planned.  She remarked that that there was no point in providing a service if what it provided was not what young people wanted, so they would be consulted. She went on to say that the Coucil had never done a proper mapping of the services that were already offered acxross the borough by the council, voluntary organisations and faith groups.

Cllr Moher referred to the paragraph about the dangers for the Roundwood Centre if the strategy was not successful. Cllr Mashari said that there were many groups just waiting to get into the centre and she looked forward to it being better used and more dynamic.

There seemed little recognition of what could be read between the lines of the report and was pixcked up by the Kilburn Times - this could mark the end of youth provision in Brent.

I was shocked that there was no delegation at the council from the youth service or its users,  or the Youth Parliament which is, after all, supposed to represent young people.  Cabinet were told that their had been a question from the former chair of Brent Youth Parliament asking what a youth worker attached to the BYP would actually do - the answer was value to say the least.  However, the BYP, kept on at a cost of £60,000 may have to watch out as Cllr Moher said that they would be looking at 'different ways' of delivering that service.

Ruth Moher also presented the report on the Expansion of Stonebridge School and was equally complacent saying that most of the respondents to the consultation had been concerned about the future of Stonebridge Adventure Playground, swallowed up by the school expansion and accompanying regeneration. Referring to the 700 letters  received against the proposal she said that these had all been the same so didn't mean much and went on to say, about a 1,000 plus petition calling for the saving of the adventure playground, 'as we know you can get anyone to sign a petition.

Dear reader, I was moved to protest at this disparagement from a councillor who had never once visited the playground!

Cllr Pavey then jumped in to tell us all how big schools were great (he is chair of governors at the BIG Wembley Primary), the bigger the better ('massive' 'bigger the better' - is there a theme emerging here?) and suggested that Quintain with its BIG profits could be persuaded to add another form of entry or two at its proposed primary school.

Cllr Butt followed this with his usual statement. The provision of school places was a statutory responsibility and the Council owes it to residents and children to provide places: 'We will not shy away from making difficult decisions'.

So, we have to admire Brent Council for making the 'difficult' decision to close a children's playground, even though it, as well as the school,  served families and children in one of the poorest parts of London. Campaigners were never persuaded that the Council had considered the possibility of an alternative design for the  expansion of the school that kept the playground or had even tried to find it an alternative site.

And wasn't Stonebridge Adventure Playground a community asset?

The meeting concluded with a refreshingly eloquent presentation by Cllr Eleanor Southwood, the new lead member for the environment. It was not about her portfolio but a report from a Scrutiny Committee task group that she led on the pupil premium and how it is used in Brent schools.

Cllr Southwood  said that the group had looked at case studies and talked to pupils not just about the impact on attainment but on enjoyment of school and the broadening of horizons.

The good practice described in the report will be shared with the Brent Schools Partnership.

Tories call for Brent Scrutiny changes following delegation refusal

Following the decision of the Scrutiny Committee last night to not allow the delegation from Philip Grant, unless he undertook not to mention the Employment Tribunal case involving Cara Davani, Cllr John Warren (Con, Brondesbury Park)  has issued the following statement.

The Scrutiny Committee has  yet again failed to do its job by rejecting a hearing of the Grant deputation on the Pavey H.R.report. It is another nail in its coffin.

Effective scrutiny must surely be challenging, controversial and "go where others do not go."  

Current scrutiny is useless with an ineffective Chairman....it simply has no credibility and does not hold the Executive to account.  I am proposing changes to the Constitution at the Council AGM on May 20, including the deletion of the current Scrutiny Committee.

My thoughts are along the lines that we need more scrutiny panels who will concentrate on specific areas of expertise, but I am open to any suggestions before I submit my proposals. 

The issues resulting from the high profile ET case cannot be swept under the carpet by a lame review.It is very undemocratic to deny Philip the chance to speak on, what any reasonable person would I think agree, issues that Brent has failed to address at every stage.

Cllr Reg Colwill (Con, Kenton) was on the Scrutiny Committee last night and  did not speak but appeared to go along with the decision not to hear Philip Grant's deputation.

Brent Equalities and HR Action Plan under Scrutiny on Thursday

An important meeting takes place on Thursday which I hope will not be over-shadowed by the General Election campaign.

At 7pm the Scrutiny Committee, meeting at the Civic Centre, will be considering the Action Plan LINK that has been formulated as a result of the Pavey Review in Equalities and HR Policies and Practice LINK .

The Pavey Review was commissioned following the Employment Tribunal case which found Brent Council and Cara Davani (Head of HR) guily of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.  Interim CEO Christine Gilbert was also named in the Judgment. However the Pavey Review did not set out to look at this particular case.

Brent Council rather than take any action over the personnel involved decided to go to appeal but a Judge ruled that such an appeal had 'no prospect of success'. LINK

The Report going before the Scrutiny Committee is in the name of Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani LINK 

The public and press can attend the meeting.

Cara Davani presenting Brent's Equalities Strategy on Wednesday

Regular readers will perhaps find it ironic that Wednesday's General Purposes Committee will be considering reports from Cara Davani, Director of Human Resources at Brent Council, on Equalities Strategy and Equalities Policy.

Brent Council has taken no action regarding Cara Davani's role in the Employment Tribunal's finding that Brent Council discriminated against an employee on grounds of race and was responsible for victimisation and constructive dismissal.  They again failed to take action a second time when the Tribunal found no grounds for the Appeal that Brent Council launched.

The last General Purposes Committee heard a report from Cllr Michael Pavey on his inquiry into the role each person had in Brent Council 'to make it the best possible place to work' - not an inquiry into the Human Resources department as such. LINK

The latest argument I have heard regarding the lack of action is that this is not a matter for councillors but for Christine Gilbert, Acting Chief Executive Officer.

The General Purposes Committee consists of the Cabinet minus Cllr Mashari, plus Cllr Kansagra, leader of the official Conservative opposition. Consideration of thr Equalities issue would perhaps carry more weight and be more robust if some Cabinet members stepped aside in favour of substitutes who are members of the BAME community.

 The Agenda blurb on the Equalities Strategy says:

The new Equality Strategy 2015 – 2019 sets out a refreshed vision and approach underpinned by the values of fairness, respect for people, valuing diversity and excellence in all our services. The strategy sets out Brent’s determination to be an exemplar of good practice in equality, diversity and human rights by achieving an ‘excellent’ assessment in the Equality Framework for Local Government in 2015 

The Action Plan includes the following outcomes:

·      All council employees receive equal pay for work of equal value

·      Progress towards a living wage for all who live and work in Brent

·      Equality is integral to all employment processes and practices

·      The council workforce is representative of the local community at all levels

·      Increased proportion of BAME senior managers

·      Our employees feel engaged in the development and work of the council

·      Positive outcomes from staff surveys

Powney: Cabinet's 'blatant disregard makes everyone involved look ridiculous'

 

Front page of this week's Kilburn Times

Former councllor James Powney takes up the issue of the Labour Group vote in favour of a Council Tax rise, and the leadership's decision to ignore the vote in his blog LINK

Cllr John Duffy has made a formal complaint to the Coinstiutional officer of the Labour Party over the issue.

This is what James Powney said:

Reports of the discussion of Council Tax increases cause me some embarrassment as a member of the Labour Party.  It seems that the Labour Group debated and voted on the issue, deciding in favour of a rise just short of what would trigger a referendum.  This seems eminently sensible to me for reasons I have explained. 

It now appears that the Executive plan to simply ignore the majority of the Group, and freeze the Council Tax.  I have never heard of such a thing in Brent or in any other authority, or indeed any other party.  Such blatant disregard makes everyone involved look ridiculous.

It is normal for Budgets to be subject to Group whipping, but since the majority voted in favour of an increase, I would have thought the Labour whip is in favour of the increase rather than against it.

Tories step into Brent Labour's Council Tax Row

Brent Central Conservatives released the foloowing Press Release yesterday
 

-->

The Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Brent Central has called for the Labour controlled Brent Council to cease its internal argument over whether to raise the rate of Council Tax by 1.99%, and instead to work together to reach a decision which is best for the residents of Brent.

Dr Alan Mendoza, a former Brent councillor who announced that he would run as the candidate for Brent Central in January, made his call for unity after an anonymous letter emerged on community blog site WembleyMatters.blogspot.co.uk, claiming to be written by a current Labour councillor.

The letter has revealed an internal argument in Brent Council’s Labour Group, over whether to raise the rate of Council Tax, with backbench Labour councillors accusing the Council Leader Cllr Muhammed Butt and Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey of refusing to accept a vote to raise the rate in order to protect Brent from further proposed service cuts.

The letter, which likens Cllr Pavey’s actions to those in George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm, claims that the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council refused “point blank” to allow the Council to vote on the Budget, and that, when members of the Labour Group did force a vote, the Leadership chose to “completely ignore it”. The letter also referred to the incident as “an affront to democracy” that will “will bring the council in disrepute.”

Dr Mendoza said: “This internal dispute is indicative of how the Labour controlled council is failing residents in Brent. Instead of working together to reach the best decision for Brent residents, it is focused on playing politics and squabbling amongst themselves.”

Speaking on the proposed increase in council tax, Dr Mendoza said: "The lie that Brent Council has no choice but to make massive cuts because of central government policy has been exposed by this rift in the Council's Labour Group. It turns out that this policy has been enforced by the Labour leadership against the will of backbench Labour councillors. I look forward to the 'nonaffiliated' anti-cuts group Brent Fightback organising its next march outside Cllr Butt's and Cllr Pavey's offices".

Turmoil as Butt and Pavey refuse to accept Labour Group vote for Council Tax rise

The Brent Council Labour Group is in turmoil after Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey refused to accept a vote by his Labour councillor colleagues at Labour Group in favour of a 1.99% rise in Council Tax.  The Group saw that as one way of saving some services from the proposed deep cuts.

Pavey argued that they could not go to the March 2nd Full Council with a list of cuts based on a frozen Council Tax and then raise the Tax.

There were some suggestions that a review of the proposed cuts could be held after the budget was approved on March 2nd.

There is anger amongst backbench councillors about what is seen as a denial of basic internal democracy and a letter of complaint has been sent to the Constitutional Officer of the Labour Party by a backbench councillor. I understand from my source that the author of the complaint is Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn).

I am writing to you as an elected Labour Party Councillor in Brent, we have over the past few weeks been discussing setting the budget. It has become clear that the budget making process is not a democratic process but a decision made by the leader (Cllr Butt) and the Deputy Leader(Cllr Pavey) without the endorsement of the Labour Group.

My complaint is not  about the different versions or opinions around the budget setting, that is a matter for democratic debate. What I wish you to investigate and give a constitutional decision is the rights or wrong of being forced to support a decision that did not follow the internal processes of the Labour party.

The leader and deputy leader have refused point blank to allow the group to vote on their Budget.However during a Labour group meeting another member forced a discussion and vote (in which the leadership took part and voted) which was overwhelmingly agreed by the full Labour Group to put up the council tax by 2% to safeguard services.The leadership refused to accept this vote and the Chair of the meeting refused to count the votes, following that meeting the Leader and Deputy Leader chose to completely ignore the vote and said they would only consider it a straw poll.

The issue I wish to investigate and give a constitutional decision on, is what I believe is an affront to democracy which is taking place in the  Brent Labour Group. The Labour group chief whip has indicated even though Labour group members have been deprived of a vote. I must vote for this budget which i believe is merely a dictate impose from the Leader and Deputy Leader without any democratic mandate.I have made it clear at all points of the budget process that I am more than willing to vote for and accept the whip if we follow the democratic process and have a vote.However unfortunately the Leader and Deputy Leader have denied me and others that right. 

I wonder will you confirm whether the chief whip is right when she says that I have to vote  for the budget that has not been agreed and voted on by the Labour Group and I would face disciplinary action from the Labour party (which I would of course appeal to NEC) if I did not support the Leader's and Deputy Leaders additional and unnecessary cuts package. 

I have a number of years experience as a councillor and have been part of the leadership on many occasions,I have also contacted sitting Labour party colleagues in  Islington,Harrow,Camden and Barnet to discuss the lack of democratic accountability and we are all in disbelief at the actions of the Leader and his Deputy. I believe unless you intervene with a ruling the Leadership of Brent's Labour group will bring the council in disrepute.Where the public and party will ridiculed  the Labour party for acting like the characters from Animals Farm": every vote is equal but some are more equal than others"  and all votes you don't like can be dismissed as a straw polls.

One Labour councillor pointed out angrily that Muhammed Butt had been boasting about freezing Council Tax and remarked, 'He is out-Pickling Pickles!'

Two important questions for Cllr. Butt to answer

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 

This week’s “Brent & Kilburn Times” carries an article, “Council to revamp its equalities policies” on page 5. I am glad to see that, rather than simply repeating Brent’s press release about Cllr. Pavey’s review, the article also reminds readers about the Employment Tribunal case which gave rise to it, referring to ‘the treatment endured by Ms Clarke from her line manager, HR director Ms Davani’, and concluding:

‘Brent Council has refused to disclose if any disciplinary action would be taken against Ms Davani.’

After reading Cllr. Pavey’s report last weekend, I sent an email letter to the editor of our local newspaper, which I hoped would be published in the same issue as any story about the results of his review. Unfortunately, the “Brent & Kilburn Times” did not have room for it in this week’s edition, carrying instead (on page 15) two very good letters about vital services threatened by the Council’s proposed budget cuts. My letter included two important questions addressed to the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr. Butt, and as I believe these questions should be put to him publicly, I have asked Martin if he would “publish” my letter here. I know that Cllr. Butt may not be a “Wembley Matters” reader, but I will ensure that he, and his colleagues, receive a copy of this letter.

Dear Editor,

A lesson not learned by Brent's HR review

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal found that former Brent Council employee, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed, directly discriminated against because of her race, and victimised by both the Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani.

Brent Council responded by appealing against the Employment Tribunal judgement, and by asking its Deputy Leader, Cllr. Michael Pavey, to review its HR policies and practice ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’.

In December 2014, a judge threw out the Council’s appeal as it had ‘no reasonable prospect of success’, because ‘none of the grounds disclose any reasonable ground of appeal’. The report on Cllr. Pavey’s review was presented to the Council’s General Purposes Committee last week. Although it shows that a great deal of effort has gone in to suggesting improvements to Brent’s HR and Equalities policies, the report does nothing about the key lesson which should have been learned from this case: that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if the officers who should follow them are allowed to ignore them.

The detailed evidence in the Employment Tribunal judgement showed that the victimisation began after Rosemarie had the courage to complain about the bullying and harassment she felt she was suffering from her line manager, Ms Davani. It also showed that the victimisation continued over a number of months, and that interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, failed to stop the victimisation when it was brought to her attention, or to follow the Council’s own grievance procedures, so that Brent was found guilty of breaching its employment contract with Ms Clarke.

The actions of these two senior officers have brought the Council into disrepute, as well as leaving it liable to massive compensation, damages and costs, but no action appears to have been taken against them. The Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, does not appear to have made any public statement about the case, and has not replied to several emails I have written to him about it. When he became Leader in May 2012 he told your newspaper that under him the Council would be ‘more open and transparent’.

I hope that Cllr. Butt will honour that promise, and give Brent’s staff and residents his answers to the following questions:-

     1.  How can staff have confidence in the Council’s latest round of job cuts, when it is being presided over by two senior officers responsible for victimisation, racial discrimination and failing to follow the Council’s HR procedures?

2.    Why is Cllr. Butt still “protecting” these two senior officers, when he has known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

Yours faithfully,

Philip Grant.

Pavey Review not yet available but notes on Constitutional challenge released

The Agenda for Thuursday's meeting of the General Purposes Committee has now been published. The meeting is due to discuss the Pavey Review of Brent Human Resources but the report is not yet available on the Agenda web page.

I understand this is because there are some late additions being made. Instead of the report there is a placeholder:

Following the loss of an employment tribunal case in September, 2014, Councillor Pavey, Deputy Leader, who has Cabinet responsibility for Equalities and the Council’s role as employer, agreed to take stock of the Council’s policies and practice to see where improvements could be made.  Councillor Pavey has now completed his review and will present the findings to the General Purposes Committee.

Although the fullest possible report is obviously desirable, it is unfortunate that members of the committee, the press and the public won't have time to consider it in detail before the meeting.

The Annual Brent Diversity Profile LINK  has been published and this graphic tells its own story about racial equality (Sc3 is the lowest and Hay the highest). Overall % of council workers who are BME is 62%):

Meanwhile the indefatigible Philip Grant is now able to pass on notes of his meeting with Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt following a resident's successful Freedom of Information request.

Philip asked for a meeting to raise his concerns over the Council's respect of its constitution.

Cllr. Butt had agreed that Mr Grant should take a note of their discussions, and that these should be sent to him for checking, with a view to producing an agreed accurate record of those discussions. It was Cllr. Butt's change of mind on that agreement which means that the Council now claims they are no more than Mr Grant's 'own personal recollection of the meeting'.

Regular readers of Wembley Matters will be able to put a name to the anonymised "AB", especially if they follow those initials in alphabetical order.

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

Stonebridge child gives Labour Council leaders some home truths

Outsdie Brent Civic Centre last night

One of the children from Stonebridge Adventure Playground surprised workers who had accompanied her to last night’s Consultation event at the Civic Centre. They said what happened ‘made the whole event worthwhile’.

The girl had been scribbling away on one of the comments cards that had been distributed and onlookers assumed she was doodling out of sheer boredom.  But then she took the microphone  and gave an impassioned speech from her notes.  She mentioned the hardship that would be caused to single and working parents, and how the closure of the Adventure Playground  would mean there was nowhere for the community to mix, people would just stay in their flats and not let their children go out. She also mentioned CCTV cameras which she said aren¹t as necessary when young people have somewhere to go.  

The councillors responded that at an earlier meeting the users of the Millennium Centre had spoken up for their centre in a similar way (thereby apparently implying it was pointless trying to argue from a human perspective) 

Doug Lee from the Playground spoke about the six months that kids aren't at school, the length of time the playground has been in operation and the money Brent Play Association has raised on behalf of other groups in Brent (supplementary schools, CVS, Pakistani Workers Association to name just three) 

Glynis Lee said that the council were saying 20% cuts to front-line services but Stonebridge Adventure Playground  was getting a 100% cut. The cuts were going to decimate front-line services, whilst councillors sat in their glass tower taking a 20% rise and people in Brent were suffering.
Although Jo Coburn from BBC Politics, who chaired yesterday’s meetings for a fee of £2,500, wanted to get into the subject of where the cuts should be made, Glynis was having none of it.

She told the councillors they were elected by the people of Brent as Labour councillors and were doing the work of the Coalition. She asked, ‘how do you guys sleep at night?' 

Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey said they did have trouble sleeping but to not go ahead with these measures would be breaking the law and they weren't prepared to do that.  

The Youth Parliament representatives also mentioned the increase in councillors' allowance and Butt responded they wanted to attract the best councillors and not just retired people or those with enough funds to do it.

People in the room also asked about proposals to work with the voluntary sector to continue to provide services in some way, and Anne O'Neil from Brent Mencap pointed out that the procurement process would hinder this unless it was vastly improved. 

An important question was raised from the floor about the use  of  Section 106 money for communities affected by redevelopment. Cllr Butt answered this, unsatisfactorily according to some, implying  that these funds just went into the general pot, and not to the respective communities.