Democracy in Brent – Open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Webcast recording of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, just about to begin.
(But Cllr. Tatler has to answer an urgent telephone call – I wonder what that was about?)

 

Under my recent guest post, “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet meeting minutes a work of fiction?”, I added several “FOR INFORMATION” comments, sharing the texts of email correspondence I’d had with Council Officers. I was trying to get them to amend the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, so that they show a true and correct record of what happened over the award of the advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge.

 

“FOR INFORMATION 4” was an email I’d sent on Friday afternoon to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), setting out the changes I believed the Council needed to make to item 7 in those minutes. But the people who finally decide (at least officially) whether the minutes of the previous meeting are a correct record are the members of the Cabinet, and this is due to happen at their next meeting, on Monday morning, 17 June, at 10am (or probably 10.01am, by the time they get to item 3 on their agenda). 

 

In view of that, I sent the following open email to the Council Leader and all members of his Cabinet at around 11.30am on Saturday 15 June. (I know it is a weekend, but they are probably all working hard, preparing for Monday’s meeting!) My email forwarded the one I had sent to Debra Norman (and I had anonymised the name of the more junior Council Officer in the version below, to protect his privacy):

 

FW: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect.

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Cabinet members,

 

I am forwarding the email below, which I sent to Debra Norman (Corporate Director, Law and Governance) yesterday afternoon, so that you are aware of the need to amend the published minutes of Cabinet's 28 May meeting, when you deal with item 3, minutes of the previous meeting, at your next meeting on Monday morning, 17 June.

 

I know, from being at the 28 May meeting for this item myself, and from the webcast of it on the Council's website, that the minutes document attached to the agenda for your 17 June meeting does not show a correct record of the proceedings over item 7, the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

 

In my email below, I have set out the changes which need to be made, based on the evidence in the webcast recording. I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.

 

While writing, I would suggest that the method of "voting" on decisions at Cabinet meetings also needs to be changed, as the present 'standard practice'* can lead to misunderstanding.

 

Cabinet meetings are the place where the public should be able to see and hear the borough's big decisions being made. If nobody speaks about the matters being decided, or expresses their view on the decision, for or against (particularly when there is more than one option available), then there is no demonstration of democracy in action.

 

At the very least, when resolutions are put to Cabinet for agreement, or otherwise, the voting should be by a show of hands. I hope that Cabinet will adopt that practice, to avoid any further episodes which could bring the Council into disrepute. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

------------------------------

Forwarded message:

 

Subject: Fwd: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect

 

To: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Further to the emails today from *****  ***** and yourself, in response to my email this morning (sending you a copy of the blog article I had written, which has now been published online: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-in-brent-are-cabinet-meeting.html ), I am writing to confirm that I still wish to challenge the accuracy of item 7 in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.

 

I have noted the explanations given by Mr *****, but believe that the main criticisms of those minutes in my article are still valid. In order to try to resolve this matter, I will set out below the amendments which I believe are required to make the minutes a correct record.

 

1. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'The Cabinet thanked those involved in the work on this and the residents who had put their views forward and RESOLVED, having noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition relating and the following options presented for consideration in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease: 

 

Option A – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled areas.

 

Option B – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.

 

(1) To approve, having taken account of the reasons detailed in paragraph 3.2.6 of the report, the award of contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease on the basis of Option B (namely advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque) to Quintain Ltd.

 

(2) To note the minimum guaranteed amount in respect of Option B would generate additional financial return above the required guarantee over the four-year contract period compared with Option A.

 

(3) To note in respect of Option B the tiled mural with plaque in honour of Bobby Moore would remain on permanent display inside the underpass framed by the lightboxes.' 

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Councillor Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. No Cabinet member indicated that they wished to speak.

 

Councillor Butt then moved the recommendation in the Officer Report, in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He asked whether he could take this in agreement from Cabinet members, and although there was no response from them, he declared that the Recommendation was agreed.’

 

2. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'Following on from the above decision, Philip Grant sought to raise a point of order, which the Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) advised he was not minded to accept on the basis of Mr Grant already having had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. '

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Immediately following that declaration, Philip Grant raised a point of order. Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) refused to acknowledge that a point of order had been raised, but Mr Grant continued to raise it, saying: 'Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.'

 

Councillor Butt continued to object to Mr Grant speaking, on the basis that he had already had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. Councillor Neil Nerva tried to intervene, saying: 'Chair. On a point of order ...', but was ignored by the Council Leader. When Mr Grant finished trying to get his point of order considered by Councillor Butt, the Council Leader said: 'Thank you very much. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’

 

These two proposed changes to the minutes of the meeting for item 7 would remedy the worst of the inaccuracies. If they are made, I would accept that the minutes would then be a true and correct record, which at present they are not. I hope that you can agree to make those changes. Thank you. Best wishes,  Philip Grant.

 

I hope that Councillor Butt and his Cabinet will agree to correct the minutes, but I won’t be holding my breath.

 

Philip Grant

 

* This is the ‘standard practice’ I was referring to in my open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet members, as explained to me by a Brent Council Governance Officer:

 

‘In terms of the minutes, from my perspective these set out in full the decision made at the meeting based on the wording of the recommendations within the accompanying report, which were approved by Cabinet on the basis of Option B being clearly identified by the Leader as the substantive recommendation in relation to the award of the contract for the advertising lease and the remaining recommendations all listed for noting. These were agreed by Cabinet without anyone indicating they were minded to vote against, or seek to amend, with the minutes reflecting standard practice in the way decisions are recorded.’

 

Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet Meeting minutes a work of fiction?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, published with the agenda for the 17 June meeting.

 

In March 2022, Martin published a guest blog from me entitled “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet Meetings a Charade?”. This is a sequel, based on my own experience from the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024, including the incident reported by Martin in a blog later that day.

 

I am not suggesting that Brent Cabinet meetings are fictitious. They happen every month, usually with a similar 40 to 45 minute ritual, presided over by the Council Leader. Nor am I implying that everything in the minutes of those meetings is false. But the minutes of those meetings are meant to be a true and correct record, checked (and, if necessary, corrected) before they are signed by the Chair as the official record of what took place, a summary of what was said and what was decided.

 

“Minutes of the Previous Meeting”, from the minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting.

 

This is the official record of the checking and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting at Cabinet on 28 May. What actually happened was that Cllr. Butt said: ‘Can we just go through them for accuracy. Page 1, page 2 ….’ Ten turned pages in as many seconds, then onto the next item with no resolution or agreement that they were a correct record.

 

A similar thing will probably happen at the next Cabinet meeting on 17 June. But the published minutes of the meeting on 28 May are NOT a correct record, and I will explain why.

 

The countdown clock for my petition presentation to Cabinet! (That’s me in the corner)

 

I have no quarrel with the minutes for item 5 on the agenda. That was my presentation of the tile murals petition to the Cabinet meeting. The Governance Officer asked me to let him have a copy of the text for my presentation, which I sent him, so that it is an accurate reflection of what I said, and very similar to the version which Martin published the day before the meeting.

 

Where the minutes do not reflect the reality of what happened is at item 7, when the meeting dealt with the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease. This is the first part of that section of the minutes:

 

The Report which Cllr. Butt introduced did clearly state, at the start, that there were two potential options as a basis for awarding the contract. But the Council Leader did not refer to the option which would have restricted the advertising to the parapets of the bridge. The petition, and my presentation on it, did refer to both options and made a strong case for that option, ending with: ‘I commend Option A to you, and ask you to vote for it.’

 

I have highlighted the wording which states that Cllr Butt “responded” to the points I had raised. He did not. He only made the slightest reference to my presentation, in part of a sentence, ‘how the contribution that Mr Philip Grant spoke about benefits the borough’. He spoke mainly about the benefits of working with developers, the CIL money this brought in, and the £210m in government funding taken away from the borough over the past 14 years. He wanted to assure residents that his Cabinet was on the side of residents, and that it would continue to provide those services that every resident needs and depends upon.

 

This second part of the minutes gets even worse, as far as accuracy is concerned:

 

‘The Cabinet thanked…’? Cllr. Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. He glanced around for one second, but no Cabinet member had indicated that they wanted to speak before he moved on to ‘the Recommendation’!

 

There was no evidence that the Cabinet had ‘noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition’. Even if they had “noted” them, they had not discussed or considered those points. It was as if the Cabinet members had decided, or been instructed, that they should not interfere with how the Leader wanted to deal with this matter.

 

It was very soon clear how he wanted to deal with it. The minutes again refer to the two options, and set out what they were. They give the false impression that the “Resolution”, or decision, was made how it SHOULD have been made, along the lines which I set out in an open email to Cllr. Butt on 20 May.

 

In order that the decision between the two options was not only fair, but could be seen to be fair by members of the public interested in the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, I had written:

 

‘From my previous experience of watching Cabinet meetings, you would usually ask members whether they agree with the recommendation(s) made by Officers in their Report. 

 

In this particular case, I am requesting that you invite individual votes for “those in favour of Option A” and for “those in favour of Option B”. In the event of an equal number of members voting for each option, you would, of course, have the casting vote as Council Leader and Chair of the meeting.’

 

Straight after his very brief invitation for comments from Cabinet members, Cllr. Butt moved on to the recommendation in the Officer Report, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He then asked, ‘Can I take this in agreement from Cabinet members?’ With hardly a glance, and in virtually the same breath he said ‘Agreed. Thank you very much.’

 

I was watching, as was Martin, and a fellow Wembley History Society colleague of mine who had signed the petition and come to support it. We are all agreed that no Cabinet member raised a hand, or spoke, to show their agreement!

The final part of the published minutes deals with what happened next:

 

I am pleased that the minutes do mention my point of order, but I did not only “seek” to raise it, I DID raise it. Immediately after what I saw as a procedural irregularity over the “agreement”, I went to the public speaker microphone and said “Point of Order”, an action which should have led to the Chair of the meeting asking me to state what my point of order was.

 

But even as I was approaching the microphone, Cllr. Butt put his hand up and said “No!” He continued to speak over me as I made clear what my point was: ‘‘Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.’

 

“No!” Cllr. Butt trying to stop me from speaking. (from the webcast recording of the Cabinet meeting)

 

The minutes say that Cllr. Butt ‘advised he was not minded to accept’ my point of order. That is untrue. He did not even acknowledge that I was raising a point of order. The minutes do not include what my point of order was. If they had included it, and if Cllr. Butt had listened to it, then the “reason” given in the minutes (that I’d already had the opportunity to speak, when presenting the petition) is shown to be nonsense. My point was that the “decision” he had just declared as “agreed” had not been agreed by the Cabinet at the meeting. 

 

What Cllr. Butt actually said, speaking over me, was: ‘Mr Grant. Thank you very much. Mr Grant. Thank you for your contribution. There is no further …’ I continued to explain that I was raising a point of order, and what it was. Cllr. Butt then tried to humiliate me, saying: ‘‘Why are you embarrassing yourself like this?’ At this point, Cllr. Nerva tried to intervene:

 

“Chair. On a point of order …’ (From the Council’s webcast recording at 16:00)

 

Cllr. Nerva appeared to be trying to explain to the Council Leader how he should deal with a point of order which had been raised. However, Cllr. Butt ignored him, and continued to direct his words at me: ‘I’m truly disappointed in yourself. It just shows….’ As I had stopped trying to speak, he finished with: ‘Thank you very much. We will move on. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’

 

The reality of what happened is very different from the record in the published minutes!

 

Brent’s Chief Executive, who was sitting next to the Council Leader at the meeting, but kept quiet throughout this, clearly realised that I had raised a point of order, what it was, and that Cllr. Butt had failed to deal with it properly. She wrote to me the following day, with what appears to be the response she thought Cllr. Butt should have made (and not the one included in the minutes!).

 

She wrote (and I have underlined the last part, for emphasis): 

 

‘I noted that you spoke again at the Cabinet meeting at the conclusion of the item that you had spoken to at the beginning of the meeting, in relation to there not being a show of hands in relation to the decision. For clarification, Members were not required to vote in this way, …. The Leader asked for confirmation that the other Members were in agreement with the recommendations and the agreement was unanimous through a verbal process, rather than a show of hands.’

 

My reply to her was:

 

‘There was definitely no show of hands, but a 'verbal process' suggests that Cabinet members spoke their agreement. 

 

There was silence. There was no vote. There was no evidence of agreement at the meeting, other than Cllr. Butt claiming that the recommendation had been agreed.’

 

Silence when Cabinet members were invited to discuss the (heavily biased) Report, and my petition presentation which put forward an alternative view to balance that. Silence when Cabinet members were asked for their agreement to the Officers’ recommendation. Paul Simon summed it up in a 1960s song:

 

Sounds of Silence. (Album cover image and lyrics extract from the internet)

 

Although I have shown that parts of the minutes for item 7 of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May are “a work of fiction” (you can confirm this from the webcast recording on the Council’s website, from 11:50 to 16:23), I don’t wish to blame the Council Officers whose task it is to prepare those minutes. They may have been following instructions. They may have prepared correct draft minutes, but been forced to make changes, after the Council Leader or a Senior Officer went ‘through them for accuracy’. I don’t know. All I do know is that these minutes are not a true and correct record!

 

Philip Grant.

UPDATED WITH BRENT CEO'S RESPONSE: Bobby Moore Bridge “footballers” mural – we need this dispute resolved!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in personal capacity

 SEE UPDATE AT FOOT OF THIS ARTICLE

 

As you had not seen yet another “guest blog” by me on the “footballers” tile mural since 13 April, when I set out the reasons that Quintain does not have consent to cover it with adverts and asked “Why won’t Brent concede?”, you may have hoped that this question had been settled by now. I’d hoped that as well!

 

The “footballers” mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park.

 

Unfortunately, Brent Council Officers don’t want to “play ball”, and get this issue properly resolved. It seems they would prefer to “kick it into the long grass”, so that Quintain and its Wembley Park subsidiary can continue to claim they are “entitled” to cover over this heritage asset and public artwork with adverts for big events at Wembley Stadium, starting with the Euros football tournament next month.

 

It should be unthinkable for this mural, showing England footballers playing at the old “twin towers” Wembley, to be hidden away behind advertising material when fans are going to the stadium to watch their team play. The adverts would also cover-up the plaque which shows they are walking through a structure dedicated ‘in honour of a football legend’. Even if you are not a football fan, I hope you would agree it would be wrong for any adverts to be placed there unlawfully, and that is what I believe would be the case.

 

The plaque in the centre of the “footballers” tile mural.

 

After I had sent the detailed reasons why Quintain did not have advertisement consent for this mural to Brent’s Legal Director and Chief Executive on 9 April, I had expected either to receive their agreement, or their counter argument. Instead, this is the full text of the email I received on 16 April from Debra Norman:

 

‘A substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns you have raised, including taking external legal advice.  I am afraid we are now at the stage where it’s not reasonable continue with correspondence about this matter upon which it is clear the council is not in a position to agree your view or take the action you wish.’

 

Because this matter does need to be resolved, I believe it was reasonable to continue! I wrote to Carolyn Downs, asking her to let me know the reasons why the Council did not “agree my view”, and making clear that if they had a stronger case than the one I had put forward, I would accept it. 

 

I will not accept the outcome that Council Officers want to impose without the evidence to back it up. I know, from past experience, that the Council will never share a copy of the ‘external legal advice’ they have received. But as they told me the QC’s advice ‘aligned with’ the view they’d already taken, surely they could share that view with me?

 

What I asked for was: ‘the substance of the reasoning for your view that the 2017 advertisement consent still applies to the "footballers" mural, and the documentary evidence on which that reasoning is based.’ The answer I finally received from Brent’s Chief Executive, on 19 May, was:

 

‘I have taken further legal advice on sharing our QC advice and have been advised not to so do.’

 

I don’t think it is fair or open for senior Council Officers to refuse to give their reasons for the view they have taken on this important matter, and I have said so. I will ask Martin to attach the full text of the latest email exchanges, so that anyone who wishes to can read them and make their own judgement.

 

We are now less than three weeks away from the start of the Euros football tournament, so this dispute over advertisement consent does need to be resolved without further delay. As Council Officers are reluctant to settle the issue, I have taken the initiative and suggested that Brent Councillors could help to do that.

 

I decided to ask the Lead Member for Culture and Leisure if he would be willing to organise a small panel of councillors to arbitrate and decide, on the facts and evidence, whether or not Quintain has consent to put adverts over the “footballers” tile mural. Any decision would need to be binding on both myself and the Council, so I copied my email to the Chief Executive.

 

I approached Councillor Nerva as he had expressed an interest when I suggested, in early January, that the Cabinet should consider the option of only allowing advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge parapets, not covering the murals on the subway walls, when the advertising lease came up for renewal in August 2021. (That was before it was disclosed that a VERY dodgy deal had been made by Council Officers in 2019, to extend the lease until August 2024!)

 

At the time of writing, I have not heard back from Councillor Nerva, but I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the text of my email, so that if you are interested you can see what I have suggested. You are welcome to add a comment below, if you wish to suggest any improvements to my proposals, or to share any better ideas on how this matter can be settled, quickly and fairly, and at minimal extra cost. 

 

Hopefully, either this way or another, we should be able to resolve this dispute. If I have to admit that my view was wrong, on the basis of the facts and evidence, I can accept that. 

 

But if I did not have confidence in the case I have already put forward, openly and transparently to Council Officers and my fellow Brent residents, I would not still be fighting to keep the “footballers” tile mural on permanent public display.

 

Philip Grant.

 

UPDATE- CAROLYN DOWNS' RESPONSE

Readers of this "guest blog" may be interested to know the latest developments, from this exchange of emails which took place this afternoon (24 May):

1. Dear Mr Grant 

Cllr Nerva has asked me to respond. 

Thanks for your suggestion of a way to resolve your outstanding issue. 

I am afraid that even if a panel of Councillors agreed with you it would not change the legal right for vinyl advertisements to be attached to the tiles over the football mural. 

I have mentioned before that the contract for advertising is due to be re-tendered later this year and in the meantime, Quintain have said that they will not advertise over it. 

Yours sincerely 

Carolyn Downs
Chief Executive
Brent Council

2. Dear Ms Downs,

Thank you for your email, in response to my suggestion to Cllr. Nerva last Friday that a panel of councillors could settle our (not my) outstanding dispute over advertisement consent by arbitration.

It would probably save a more detailed reply from me if you would clarify two points from the final sentence of your email, please, as quickly as possible.

You have said that 'the contract for advertising is due to be re-tendered later this year.' It was my understanding that the November 2019 Deed of Variation extended Wembley Park Ltd's advertising lease until August 2024. Would you explain, please, what the re-tendering will involve, and when this will happen.

You say that 'Quintain have said that they will not advertise over it.' Does that mean that Quintain have given a guarantee that no vinyl advertising sheets will be placed over the "footballers" tile mural? If so, I would welcome a copy of the communication confirming that, please.