Monitoring Officer's response regarding councillors, developers and planning decisions

Guest post by Philip Grant, first published as a comment on earlier posting.
 

Further to my "update" comment of 17 November LINK, I have now heard back from Debra Norman. She has said that 'it would not be appropriate for me to become involved in “public debates on issues of local interest”,' as 'I have to remain impartial and avoid any appearance of bias or pre-determination.'

I respect her position on this, but she also said: 'However, as there is no legal rule prohibiting the publication of my previous email to you, it is a matter for you whether you publish it.'

As her reply of 15 November was well-reasoned, and will help to contribute to a balanced discussion of the issues raised, I have told her that I will "publish" the full text of it on "Wembley Matters".

Dear Mr Grant

I am responding to your email below of 12 November 2017.

Allegations of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct (the code) are dealt with in accordance with the Council’s formal complaints procedure and should be submitted using the Council’s standard form – both of which are available on the Council’s website (see here: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/complaints/complain-about-a-councillor/).

To date, I have not been contacted directly by anyone to complain about the matters set out in your email.

As therefore I can comment in general terms only, I hope the following is helpful.

In principle and for practical reasons, allegations of breaches of the code which are non-specific and don’t contain any direct evidence are likely to fail to disclose a potential breach of the code. For example, such allegations are incapable of being investigated in any meaningful or reliable way and/or are not susceptible to proof.

Of course, all Members, and especially senior Members, can reasonably expect to be held to account for their conduct and for complaints alleging serious misconduct to be dealt with properly, not only in accordance with established standards of good administration but also natural justice.

It is therefore regrettable when allegations of serious wrong-doing which are not specific and substantiated are made against individual councillors and made publicly available for repetition and comment by others. Allegations of this nature can cause serious reputational damage to the individual councillor concerned without him/her being able to properly defend themselves or clear their name, risk undermining public trust and confidence in local government and could even prejudice the Council’s ability to properly investigate or determine allegations of serious wrong-doing.

Public trust and confidence in all areas of Council decision making is important, with planning being a high profile example. It is for this reason that Planning Committee Members receive training on how to undertake their decision making role. In addition, all Members from time to time are reminded that planning decisions should always be taken in the public interest and on proper planning grounds (often referred to as material planning considerations, for example, planning policy and guidance) and in accordance with the general obligations set out in the code and the principles of conduct which underpin the code.

Members are made aware of the need to comply with the rules of natural justice i.e. the duty to act fairly; the duty to keep an open mind (i.e. the rule against pre-determination); and the rule against bias (both actual bias which may arise as a result of a direct (usually financial) interest in the matter to be decided and the appearance of bias i.e. the real possibility of bias arising from relationships or the decision maker’s conduct or actions or strongly worded views).

Members are also made aware of the standards of conduct expected of all Members whenever they conduct the business of the Council or their office and whenever they act, claim to act, or give the impression they are acting as a councillor. These include not using or attempting to use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for themselves or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage, giving reasons for decisions and not bringing their office or the Council into disrepute.

The Council’s Planning Code of Practice supplements and reinforces these requirements. Members of the Planning Committee are aware that if they are approached by any persons or groups regarding an application they intend to decide, they are required to inform the Monitoring Officer.

Members of the Planning Committee know that they are required to make up their own mind. Voting blindly in support of party policy or the party whip is clearly not allowed. This includes not accepting a direction from their political group as to how they should vote. Nor should individual Members exert undue or inappropriate pressure on Members of the Planning Committee on how they should vote.

However, Members are not required to have a blank mind. The law permits Members to be pre-disposed to a certain point of view which they can give weight to but they must consider and give weight to all material planning considerations, other views and arguments, and all the evidence. In other words, they must be prepared to change their view if persuaded they should. In drawing a key distinction between pre-determination (which is unlawful) and predisposition (which is recognised as a reality of political and local government life), the courts have sensibly struck a pragmatic balance.

Provided Members comply with these rules, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or, provided these rules are not breached, even a future decision.

Similarly, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue between Members of the Planning Committee and Members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Committee simply need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

[Debra Norman, Chief Legal Officer, Resources Department, Brent Council]

Alleged political interference in Brent's planning decision making process brought to attention of Monitoring Officer

 From Philip Grant (first published as a comment on Andrew Linnie's psot)

Further to Andrew Linnie's post LINK, this is the text of an email I have sent to Debra Norman, Brent's Chief Legal Officer:-

Dear Ms Norman,

I am writing to you in your role as Brent Council's Monitoring Officer, to bring to your attention allegations of interference in decision making over planning applications, which, if true, are in clear breach of Brent's Planning Code of Conduct and Members' Code of Conduct.

You will remember that, on 3 October, you replied on behalf of the Council to a Freedom of Information Act request I had made, about hospitality received on 10 May 2017 by two Cabinet members and two Senior Officers from Terrapin Communications Ltd, on behalf of some of their developer clients. I shared the information provided, and my views on it, in a blog on the "Wembley Matters" site on 5 October, which I believe I drew your attention to.

As a result of my involvement in that matter, I received private email correspondence in early October from several Brent councillors, who shared information with me "in confidence". I responded to them, saying that I felt their allegations and supporting evidence should be passed on to you, as Monitoring Offier. I do not know whether any of them have done so, as they may be concerned about the personal consequences to their political careers if they were to "blow the whistle" on the Council Leader.

I was not intending to get involved further, but information from another FoI request has been shared today on the "Wembley Matters" site, in a blog headed "No records kept of Cllr. Butt's closed-door meetings with Alperton tower developers", which I would suggest that you read at:
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/no-records-kept-of-cllr-butts-closed.html

In view of the concerns raised in that article, I felt it only right to ensure that you were made aware of the nature of the information I was given by councillors early last month, so that you can consider what action should be taken to stop the potentially illegal manipulation of Brent's planning process, and help to restore trust in that process, which many Brent residents feel has been brought into disrepute. Even though I cannot give the names of my sources, I believe that the information they gave me was in good faith, and is probably true.

1) It is "common knowledge" among Brent councillors that there is "political interference" with the planning process at Brent Council.

2) A former planning officer and a former legal officer at Brent Council have confirmed that there was direct interference by Cllr. Butt in planning decisions made.

3) At least three current or former councillors on Brent's Planning Committee have admitted that Cllr. Butt has told them how to vote on planning applications - but none of them are willing to speak out publicly.

I will copy the text of this email as a comment on today's blog article (see link above), so that it is in the public domain that this information has been given to you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Brent CEO's Standards complaint against Cllr Duffy upheld but no apology made as yet

Brent Standards Committee will receive a report at its September 28th meeting on a complaint made by Brent Council's CEO, Carolyn Downs, and Cllr Liz Dixon against Cllr John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn ward)

The agenda item states:
 

Members’ Code of Conduct Complaint about Councillor John Duffy 


In June and July 2017, the Council’s Chief Executive and Councillor Liz Dixon made a Members’ Code of Conduct complaint about Councillor John Duffy. The background to the complaint is recorded in the attached Decision Notice as is Councillor Duffy’s response, a discussion of the issues arising and the reasons for the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision. 


The complaint about Councillor Duffy was upheld and by way of sanction it was recommended that: 
 

Councillor Duffy apologises to the Chief Executive;
- the decision notice be published on the Council’s website for 6 months; and - the decision be reported to this Committee.

Councillor Duffy did not exercise his right to request a review of the decision which is now final. 


To date, Councillor Duffy has not apologised to the Chief Executive. The decision notice has been published on the Council’s website and this is the reporting of the complaint and the decision to this Committee. 


 

MONITORING OFFICER DECISION NOTICE


Brent Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints about the conduct of Councillor John Duffy

The complaints

On 26 June 2017, the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, made a Members’ Code of Conduct complaint about Cllr John Duffy, Kilburn Ward. The complaint alleged that Cllr Duffy had breached the general principles of conduct, in particular, integrity and leadership and breached the following general obligations:

·      4(1): You must treat others with respect. 


·      4(2)(b): You must not bully any person. 


·      4(2)(e): You must not make frivolous, vexatious or repeated complaints against 
another member or an officer of the Council. 


·      5: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded 
as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute. 
The Code of Conduct amplifies the general principles of integrity and leadership in the following terms: 


·      Integrity: You should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour. 


·      Leadership: You should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence. 
 

The factual and evidential bases of the complaint is an email sent by Cllr Duffy on 26 June 2017 to the Chief Executive and all councillors criticising the Chief Executive. The broader context is as follows. 
On 26 June 2017 at 15:01, the Chief Executive sent an email to the Mayor giving her advice regarding a request for an extraordinary meeting of the Full Council in response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Chief Executive advised on the legal and constitutional rules, explained the procedure for calling an extraordinary/special meeting and set out the options and possible permutations. The Chief Executive also mentioned the member drop in session which had been arranged and suggested that the discussion of this very important topic could take place at a scheduled meeting of Full Council on 10 July 2017 - which had been in all members’ diaries for some time - and that normal rules could be suspended to enable a fuller and longer discussion. The email stated that “Clearly the decision to have the meeting before the 10/07/17 is your decision but I thought it transparent to share with all Councillors my advice to you.”. Accordingly, when sending her email to the Mayor, the Chief Executive copied in all other councillors. 
Shortly afterwards at 15:36, in his email reply (also copying in all councillors), the Mayor thanked the Chief Executive for her helpful advice and expressed his agreement. The Mayor, however, confirmed that: “If 5 councillors sign a requisition asking me to call an extraordinary meeting I will consider their request very carefully before making my decision.” 


Cllr Duffy initially replied by email at 16:21 (also copying in all councillors) and then re-sent his email at 16:29. In substance, the emails are virtually identical: the second email inserted a few more words which are immaterial to my decision. For ease of reference, I have re- produced below the actual content of Cllr Duffy’s second email with the additions underlined.

“The CEO behaviour is disgraceful and out of touch with reality.She says it’s not her decision but clearly she is trying to manipulated the Mayor and the situation. 

She is well aware there was more than enough members support for a special meeting but she has decided to ignore that. 

The Labour group should not stand by while she swans off to “gold”
(Personally I do not think they are doing a good job , the evacuation in Camden was a shambles)telling everybody else what to do , while she neglects Brent residents and thinks a bosses bulletin will suffice for our residents and local councillors Her first loyalty should be to Brent . 

Disgraceful behaviour and what I have come to expect from this CEO who is out of touch with Brent residents and seeks to enhance her own reputation instead allowing Brent residents information”.

The reference to “gold” in Cllr Duffy’s email is to the Chief Executive participating in the London-wide emergency support provided to Kensington and Chelsea Council following the Grenfell Tower fire. 

Given that these email exchanges lie at the heart of this complaint, they are appended to this decision in full. 

On 1 July Cllr Liz Dixon also made a complaint about Cllr Duffy email. Cllr Dixon complained that:

“In an apparent attempt to make representations on behalf of his residents Cllr John Duffy has made a number of widely distributed disparaging remarks about the personal and professional integrity of Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. In doing so, Cllr Duffy also publicly belittled the importance and effectiveness of London’s Gold Command structure and process. While Cllr Duffy has every right to make representations, and is free to speak critically in holding Brent Council to account, on this occasion his disreputable behaviour has fallen below the expected standard and as such Labour Group Executive is taking this action. This complaint is made on the basis of comments made in the attached emails which we believe to be entirely unwarranted, defamatory, malicious and vexatious.”

On 3 July 2017, the Chief Executive also complained about a further chain of emails between Cllr Duffy and officers (and copied to all councillors) which she felt demonstrates vexatiousness. The email exchanges concern an additional briefing session arranged for Members on fire safety in Brent. In his exchanges on 29 June 2017, Cllr Duffy, amongst other things, made further critical remarks about the Chief Executive’s advice to the Mayor. For example, “...it proves her strategy of kicking everything to the 11^th was flawed...”; “Why did she change her mind, was it because before the ink was dry on her email stopping a special meeting the facts were becoming clear that her decision was wrong and was unravelling in front of her” and “The CEO had decided not to have a special meeting and the Mayor and some other councillors support it and now we are in a mess and we look like we have something to hide”. Cllr Duffy copied all other councillors as well as other members of the Corporate Management Team into his email.

The response

In his initial response to the Monitoring Officer, Cllr Duffy reaffirmed his criticisms of “Gold”. For example, “I do not think Gold are doing a good job, you cannot make me say they are. They are useless and need to get their act together and start relating to the victims in K +C.”. 

Cllr Duffy also repeated his criticisms of the Chief Executive. For example, “The CEO made no attempt to contact me before she cancel the meeting....”, and “She mislead Councillors saying I had not enough Councillors knowing that I had”. 

Cllr Duffy also claimed that the Monitoring Officer was not impartial. 

In a subsequent response to the Monitoring Officer, Cllr Duffy said “I honestly do not care, what you do as I think the CEO behaviour is out of control and she believes because she wares a gold badge at meetings she is above dealing with local Councillors and residents 

It is clearly is no use complaining about her, as it will be you who will deal with complaint. You and the CEO have sought to misuse your powers to curtail debate.”.

The issues

Under section 27(1) of the Localism Act 2011, the Council has a duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the Council. Enforcing the general principles and obligations set out in the Code of Conduct is key to discharging this important statutory duty. 

In accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure, the Monitoring Officer carried out an initial assessment of the complaints and found that they fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct. Cllr Duffy’s emails clearly relate to Council business and ward matters and it is equally clear that he was acting in his capacity as a councillor. 

My determination of the complaints are set against the following legal and political background.

Councillors are entitled to criticise officers and their decisions and, depending on the circumstances, do so publicly and robustly. Criticism does not in itself amount to bullying or failing to treat someone with respect. Councillors are also entitled to challenge officers as to why they hold their views and officers can reasonably expect to be held accountable for their views, decisions and actions. However, if criticism is a personal attack or of an offensive nature, it is likely to cross the line of what is acceptable behaviour. Similarly, unwarranted comments which undermine public confidence in the administration of local government affairs and/or impair the mutual trust and confidence between members and officers are unlikely to be acceptable. 

Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating behaviour. Such behaviour may happen once or be part of a pattern of behaviour. Amongst other things, bullying behaviour attempts to undermine an individual. 

When a Code of Conduct complaint concerns something a member is alleged to have said or written (as in this case), a finding of breach will only be lawful if it fully respects the important right to freedom of expression enjoyed by members of local authorities in the interests of effective local democracy. 

My decision has accorded due respect to Cllr Duffy’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. 

This right has a long tradition in our common law and was embedded in domestic statute law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: 

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” 

This includes a right to express views which others may find objectionable or even offensive. Further, comments which constitute political expression attract an enhanced level of protection under Article 10. There are limits however. And the right itself is limited and not absolute which means it has to be balanced against the duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members. Further, the right has to be balanced against competing rights such as the Article 8 right to private life etc. which includes the protection of the reputation of others.

The decision

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, before deciding the outcome of this complaint, I consulted the Council’s Independent Person and have taken her views into account. 

Cllr Duffy’s reaction to the Chief Executive’s advice was entirely without justification. The Chief Executive had stated the legal and constitutional rules accurately. And the rules had been applied correctly: at the time of writing, a request for an extraordinary meeting of Full Council had been received from 4 members only (i.e. not 5); in any event, the request had not been signed by the members and was not accompanied by a notice of the motion to be debated at the meeting as required by the constitution. The advice was balanced, set out the options and stated in clear terms that the decision had to be made by the Mayor. The advice was also given transparently. 

Against that background, the allegation (which was stated twice) that the Chief Executive’s behaviour was “disgraceful” and that she was trying to manipulate the Mayor and the situation was unacceptable. As was the suggestion that “The Labour group should not stand by while she [the Chief Executive] swans off to “gold”” and the accusation that the Chief Executive “seeks to enhance her own reputation”. 

Cllr Duffy’s response was an unreasonable and excessive personal attack. These comments are unequivocally and deliberately offensive, disparaging and defamatory. Although I acknowledge that the Grenfell Tower fire is an emotive issue and feelings were running high at the time, the comments I have referred to amount to an unjustified attack of a personal nature and do not concern fire safety issues. 

In my view, those aspects of Cllr Duffy’s email crossed the line and failed to treat the Chief Executive with respect and brought his office and the Council into disrepute. This is especially so because Cllr Duffy copied all other councillors into his email. This amounts to breach of obligations 4(1) and 5 of the Code of Conduct as well as the obligation to maintain a high standard of conduct and, in particular, the principles of integrity and leadership (see para. 3). 

I am also satisfied that the email Cllr Duffy sent on 26 June 2017 in overall terms either by itself, or when read in conjunction with his email exchanges on 29 June 2017, is vexatious and unjustifiably offensive and bullying in nature. The persistent and targeted criticisms of the Chief Executive in emails which were sent to all other councillors and senior officers have no reasonable foundation, were intended to undermine the Chief Executive and have a harassing effect. 

This amounts to breach of obligations 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(e) of the Code of Conduct as well as the obligation to maintain a high standard of conduct and, in particular, the principles of integrity and leadership (see para. 3). 

For these reasons, I am satisfied that my findings of breach are a necessary and proportionate interference with Cllr Duffy’s right to freedom of expression. The Council has an important statutory duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and the serious, deliberate and unfounded accusations of wrongdoing which Cllr Duffy repeated and disseminated to others crossed the line and amount to an unreasonable and excessive personal attack. In addition, such an attack on the Chief Executive, without consequence, could expose other officers to similar treatment.

Further, the unfounded accusations of manipulating and misleading others and acting out of self-interest and other such personal attacks do not attract the higher level of protection that political expression does. Alternatively, even if they did, the findings of breach would still be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. 

For completeness, I note that Cllr Duffy was also disparaging about “gold” and made other criticisms of the Chief Executive being “out of touch” and neglecting Brent residents. As set out above, Cllr Duffy has a fundamental right to hold opinions on these matters and to express those opinions. As a matter of law, I do not have to agree with or approve of Cllr Duffy’s comments in order to respect his fundamental right to make such comments. 

Cllr Duffy has not disputed that he sent the emails the subject of the complaints under consideration. In any event, I am satisfied that there are no factual issues which need investigating before a decision can be made because the meaning of the emails which has caused offence and the context is clear. For these reasons, I have been able to conclude that there has been a clear breach of the Code of Conduct without an investigation.

The sanction

I recommend that Cllr Duffy apologises to the Chief Executive within 5 working days of the end of the period for requesting a review of my decision. 

This decision notice will also be published on the Council’s website for 6 months and will be formally reported to the Standards Committee. 

I am satisfied that these measures are proportionate to the clear and serious breaches of the Code of Conduct by Cllr Duffy. 

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, as far as the complainants are concerned my decision is final and there is no right of appeal or right of internal review against my decision. 

As far as Cllr Duffy is concerned, he may request in writing within 10 working days of receiving this decision notice that the Monitoring Officer review my decision that he breached the Code of Conduct and/or the sanction imposed. The reasons for requesting a review must be given and any new supporting documentation provided. 

LOOQMAN DESAI
 

DEPUTY MONITORING OFFICER, BRENT COUNCIL

Tell YOUR Brent councillor what you think about a possible “pay off” to Cara Davani

-->

 Guest post by Philip Grant

As regular “Wembley Matters” readers will know, I have been active in seeking to get the Council to ensure that Brent’s Director of HR faces the consequences of her actions in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, since the Tribunal judgment was published more than nine months ago. Many of you commented on two blogs posted last week about the announcement that Ms Davani is to leave the Council at the end of June. One of the biggest concerns is that she may be receiving a “pay off” from Brent in return for (finally!) leaving, which might also include Brent “picking up the bill” for any damages and costs awarded against Ms Davani personally in the Rosemarie Clarke case (in which she and Brent are separately named respondents).

I had hoped to get some publicity for our concerns about any such “pay off” through a letter to the editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, but there is no letters page in this week’s (18 June) edition. Worse still, the newspaper has also not included its online article about Ms Davani’s departure in the printed version. Instead, the space that it might have occupied carries a photograph of a smiling Cllr Muhammed Butt, alongside a story about a letter he has written to the Tory Party chairman, complaining about the embarrassment which the feuding rival Conservative groups are causing to Brent.

However, I have raised the issue of possible financial malpractice (as a result of conflicts of interest) in connection with any possible financial arrangements arising from Ms Davani leaving the Council, with the Head of Brent’s Audit and Investigation team. I will “copy and paste” below (for reasons explained in its final paragraph) the text of the covering email which I sent on Wednesday evening with my report and supporting evidence. 

The other reason I am writing this “guest blog” is to invite all readers who live in Brent, and who share my concerns, to write to their ward councillors (see the link at the right-hand side of “Wembley Matters” for contact details for local councillors, if you don’t already have them). Tell your councillors (politely but firmly, in your own words, and without abusive language, please) what you think about any possible “pay off” to Cara Davani, and ask them to raise questions about it with senior Council Officers and the Leader of the Council, with a view to ensuring that no such “pay off” is made. You might also wish to copy your email to chief.executive@brent.gov.uk , and to cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk , for good measure. Individual messages from local voters, especially if there are a large number of them, can make a difference, so let your councillors know what you think on this matter.

I believe that there is a strong case for Brent not to let Ms Davani’s “friends in high places” give her a leaving gift at the Council’s (that is, our) expense. This is how I set out this belief in the final paragraph of the letter which I hoped would be published this week:

‘It is possible that the total Tribunal awards to Ms Clarke may be in excess of £1 million, quite apart from the Council’s own huge legal costs in fighting the case. The Council will have to pay whatever the Tribunal awards against it as “first respondent”; but funds needed by the Council for providing services (and supporting the jobs of local people who provide them) must not be wasted in making unnecessary and undeserved payments to Ms Davani, or on her behalf. Her actions have already had such a high cost, both financial and reputational, to Brent, quite apart from the harm done to the lives of the victims of her style of managing Human Resources in the borough.’

If you agree, please let the Council, and your councillors, know about it. Thank you.

Philip Grant

Text of my email of 17 June 2015 to the Head of Audit and Investigations (which he has acknowledged receipt of):-

Dear Mr Lane,

Possible Financial Malpractice / Irregularity over leaving arrangements for Director of HR

Following the news last week that Cara Davani, Director of HR and Administration, would be leaving the Council at the end of June, there has been great concern locally about a rumoured “pay off” to her. This concern can be seen in many comments on online blog items, for example

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/reliable-source-reports-that-cara.html

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

and has also been expressed to me privately by several local councillors, who are aware of my interest in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, which may (finally!) have something to do with Ms Davani’s departure.

Under Brent’s Anti-Fraud and Bribery Policy, your department has a duty to prevent financial malpractice where possible, so that funds are not lost to the Council because of irregularities such as undisclosed conflicts of interest. I believe that any potential payments, or indemnities, which might be given to Ms Davani as part of her leaving arrangements are likely to involve conflicts of interest, and have set out the reasons for this in the attached report and supporting documents.

I would ask that you ensure, as a matter of urgency, that any financial arrangements with Ms Davani, other than the payment of her basic salary up to the end of June 2015, are suspended until the outcome of a proper investigation into the points I have raised.

I will forward a copy of this email to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, who will need to ensure that certain documents I have referred to are secured, and made available to you, and may also need to take action over some of the points raised in her role as the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

I intend to publish the text of this email, although not any of its attachments, so that its contents are on public record, thereby hopefully ensuring that there is no attempt by anyone in a position of power at the Civic Centre to stop you from freely carrying out the Policy’s stated intention to ‘investigate any allegation that may have a direct, or indirect, impact of the finances for which [the Council is] responsible.’

Please acknowledge safe receipt of this email and its seven attachments. Thank you. Best wishes

Philip Grant.

Brent revises process for dismissal of Chief Excutive & other senior officers

Cabinet will be asked to adopt new procedures and changes in standing orders at their meeting on June 22nd regarding the dismissal of senior staff, including the Chief Executive.  Other staff to whom it applies are the Chief Finance Officer and the Monitoring Officer.

In 2012 the then Brent Director of Finance, Chris Heaphy, was suspended over gross misconduct allegations( later withdrawn) shortly after Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel was ousted by Muhammed Butt. LINK

The proposal institutes a Dismissal Advisory Committee which includes'independent persons':

The Council will be required to invite independent persons to form part of a panel in the following priority order:

·      an independent person who has been appointed by the Council and who is registered as a local government elector in the borough of Brent;

·      any other independent person who has been appointed by the Council;

and

·      an independent person who has been appointed by another council or

other councils.

The Council has appointed one independent person to deal with Member Code of Conduct complaints but the 2015 Regulations explicitly allow theCouncil to utilise independent persons appointed by other councils.

This is why it is proposed that the Chief Operating Officer be authorised to explore the possibility of sharing independent persons appointed by other councils with a view to establishing a pool of 5 independent persons from which 3 can be selected to form a panel

Such a shared system may be a more cost effective and efficient use of a limited number of independent persons.

The Chief Operating Officer, who wrote the report, is Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets.

Apart from concerns that might arise from the above, there is an Alice in Wonderland feel about the flow chart.

In the top half of the chart you will see that action (or a decision not to act) is in the hands of the General Purposes Committee. The GPC consists of 7 Labour Cabinet Members and one Conservative opposition member.

In the bottom half you can see that the GPC notifies the Cabinet. In effect this is the 7 Cabinet members plus one Tory notifying 8 Cabinet members (Cllr Mashari is added to the 7).

They then have a kind of internal debate with themselves where they might object as Cabinet and reconsider as GPC, before the Dismissal Advisory Panel comes into play...

The Council will be asked to formally approve the appointment of Carolyn Downs as Chief Executive and Head of Paid Services with effect from September 7th 2015 LINK