Councillor Butt Standards Investigation finding - not guilty, or not proven?

The Brent Standards Committee (Chair Cllr James Allie, Vice Chair Cllr Sandra Kabir) will receive a report at its meeting on Thursday 22nd (6pm Civic Centre) of the independent investigation into Philip Grant's misconduct complaint against Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt.

The 'headline' on the agenda and Fiona Alderman's report is:

Mr Penn’s report concludes that there is no evidence to support the complaint and that Councillor Butt did not breach the Members’ Code of Conduct

Richard Penn was an Independent Investigator and we should respect his overall conclusion, but the headline does not tell the whole story.  The only major difference with  Penn's July report is this paragraph:

4.6 In his written comments on my draft report Philip Grant has set out his reasons why he considers that Councillor Butt has breached the requirements of the Members Code of Conduct in respect of ‘honesty’, ‘’integrity’, ‘openness’ and ‘leadership’. He did not provide any new or additional evidence in support of his compliant but pointed to some of the details of the evidence that I collected through my investigation as supporting his contention that Councillor Butt had breached the Code. I have given his submission careful consideration but have found no reason to vary my finding that there is no evidence to support Philip Grant’s complaint that Councillor Butt has breached the requirements or obligations of the London Borough of Brent’s Members Code of Conduct in respect of ‘honesty’, ‘’integrity’, ‘openness’ and ‘leadership’ .

In introducing his detailed complaint to Mr Penn in a letter on August 25th, Philip Grant had written about the July report:

'Over the next few pages your report sets out seven separate ‘related allegations’, numbered (i) to (vii), and considers the evidence in respect of them, before reaching a conclusion about Cllr. Butt’s actions or conduct on each point. 

I agree that those seven ‘related allegations’ did need to be examined as part of your investigation into ‘whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members' Code of Conduct’, but I believe your report to be flawed because it then moves straight on to your finding at para. 4.6:

‘4.6  My finding is that there is no evidence to support this complaint, and that therefore there was no breach by Councillor Butt of the general conduct principles of honesty, integrity, openness and leadership.’

Although there is a reference to Cllr. Butt’s conduct being ‘entirely appropriate’ in the report’s conclusion on item (vi) of para. 4.5, there is no consideration in the draft report of how, on the evidence available to you, Cllr. Butt’s conduct measured up to the standards required by the general conduct principles. I would therefore comment, and ask you please to consider, that this part of your report should be re-drafted so that it does actually do what the Monitoring Officer’s letter requested, and investigate:

‘whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members' Code of Conduct.’ '

Despite Grant pointing out that Penn's did not look at the evidence he had gathered in terms of the requirements set out in the general conduct principles, Penn does not appear to have taken this on board.  In this respect the report going to Standards Committee is still flawed.

In para. 3.5 (evidence given by Cllr. Butt at interview with Richard Penn) on page 20 of the report it records that Penn asked Butt twice why he had involved XX (the Labour Party worker) in enquiries about Tayo Oladapo (which should have been a key point in considering whether Butt had put himself in a position where his integrity could be questioned), but no real answer was given to this question.

In the Findings section, at around page 42, there is an important passage which shows that it was only because there was no clear evidence that Butt knew that Cllr. Oladapo was dead which gives rise to the finding that 'there is no evidence to support the complaint':

'Councillor Butt said that on 2 March 2016 he had asked XX to go to the hospital to enquire about Councillor Oladapo. He contends that he did not know that Councillor Oladapo had died at the end of January 2016 until Mark Walker told him on 7 March 2016, and that he did not say to XX that he believed that Councillor Oladapo had been dead for a month. 

However, there is evidence from my investigation that Councillor Butt and others had speculated that Councillor Oladapo might be dead or that he might have been taken back to Nigeria by his mother to die. Councilor Butt did tell XX that he believed Councillor Oladapo might be dead but this appears to have been simply expressing an unsubstantiated possibility. This is very different from knowing that someone had died, and it is clear that Councillor Butt was not prepared to acknowledge this as a fact even after XX had spoken to a receptionist at the hospital who had told her that Councillor Oladapo had died.'

The final paragraph of the report gives the result of the Labour Party enquiry into this matter (Richard Penn had agreed with the Labour Party investigator that they would liaise, in order to avoid embarrassing each other with different conclusions!). This is what the Labour Party investigation found (our highlighting):

'On 6 July 2016 John Stolliday, the Head of the Labour Party Constitutional Unit, wrote to Councillor Butt to inform him that the Labour Party’s investigation to determine the facts around the death of Councillor Oladapo and how the Labour Party and Brent Council had been notified his death had concluded. Councillor Butt was informed by Mr Stolliday that the investigation had found no evidence that he had been aware with any certainty on or before March 2 2016 that Councillor Oladapo had died. Mr Stolliday said that the details of the conversation between Councillor Butt and XX are disputed, but no one else was present during their meeting or privy to the content of the conversation. Given this, and given that no other evidence has been presented, it was impossible to prove XX’s allegations were true beyond doubt, although there is no reason to believe that she doubted the truth of her allegations. The Labour Party had therefore decided that no further action would be taken in this matter and that there is no further case to answer.'

Overall, despite what Cllr Butt and Brent Council may claim, perhaps the verdict should be 'not proven' rather than 'not guilty'.

Following receipt of Richard Penn's draft report Philip Grant responded:

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question. (Brent Council General Conduct principle)

1.1 The key issue from my complaint about Cllr. Butt apparently misleading the Council and his fellow councillors about the death of Cllr. Tayo Oladapo is what Cllr. Butt knew, and when he knew it, and whether he was truthful about these matters.
 
1.2 As your report says, at item (i) of para. 4.5:

‘He [Cllr. Butt] contends that he did not know that Councillor Oladapo had died at the end of January 2016 until Mark Walker told him on 7 March 2016, and that he did not say to [XX] that he believed that Councillor Oladapo had been dead for a month.’ 

1.3 Your report goes on to say:

‘However, there is evidence from my investigation that Councillor Butt and others had speculated that Councillor Oladapo might be dead or that he might have been taken back to Nigeria by his mother to die. Councilor Butt did tell [XX] that he believed Councillor Oladapo might be dead but this appears to have been simply expressing an unsubstantiated possibility. This is very different from knowing that someone had died …. My conclusion is that there is no evidence to support the allegation that Councillor Butt knew that Councillor Oladapo had died before he was advised of this by Mark Walker on 7 March 2016 following [XX]’s visit to the hospital on 4 March.’ 

1.4 Cllr. Butt had a duty to be truthful in his Council work, and there is a clear difference between himself and [XX] over the truth of what was said at the meeting between them on 2 March. In the circumstances, I accept that you had little choice but to give Cllr. Butt the benefit of the doubt in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
 
1.5 However, it is also a requirement and obligation of the “Honesty” general conduct principle that councillors must ‘avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.’ Over the next few paragraphs I will provide examples, from the evidence available to you in your draft report (and first report) of what appear to be various versions of “the truth” given by Cllr. Butt in this matter. These show clearly that Cllr. Muhammed Butt was the main source of information about Cllr. Oladapo’s condition for both Brent Council and its Labour Group councillors. I would ask you to consider whether the differing versions of this information created a situation where Cllr. Butt’s honesty might be called into question.

1.6 At para. 2.9 (Interview with Chief Executive) of your first report to the Council of 4 July 2016, the following account of what the Council Leader told the Council is given:

‘The Chief Executive told me that the report to Full Council on 18 January 2016 had requested approval for further absence by Councillor Oladapo as he had been expected to attend that meeting following an organ transplant, but the week before the Council meeting the Council Leader had told her that Councillor Oladapo had been readmitted to hospital. The next Council meeting was on 22 February 2016 and the ‘pre meeting’ with the Mayor, the Leader and Opposition members was on 17 February 2016. At this pre meeting the Leader referred to Councillor Oladapo’s further absence saying that he had not heard from Councillor Oladapo or his family, but that he had become aware that Councillor Oladapo was no longer at the Royal Free Hospital. Councillor Butt said that he understood that Councillor Oladapo’s health had deteriorated and that his mother had taken Councillr Oladapo to Nigeria to die. The Chief Executive advised that she considered that the Council should now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a further report should not be submitted to the Council. However, the others present at the meeting considered that this would appear inappropriately harsh for a dying man ….’ 

1.7 Para. 3.4 of your draft report contains a long written statement from Cllr. Butt, which he provided to you in advance of your interview with him. His statement includes the following passage (on page 15 of the draft report):

‘At the full council meeting in February apologies for absence for Tayo were given and for his absence due to ill health were tabled. This was done in absolute good faith either that he was recovering somewhere here in the UK or that he had flown out with his mother to recover at the family home in Nigeria.’ 

1.8 Para. 3.10 of the draft report records what Cllr. Kabir, the Labour Group Chief Whip, told you at interview, including the following (at page 35):

‘In the early part of this year the Group Executive did not know what was happening in relation to Councillor Oladapo, except that he was in the Royal Free Hospital in Camden and that he was still ill. Councillor Butt had told her that he had been to see Councillor Oladapo and had been shocked at his appearance. A number of people wanted to go to the hospital to see him but were told that he did not want to see anyone. In February this year Councillor Butt was telling anyone who asked that Councillor Oladapo was still in hospital so far as he knew.’ 

1.9 Para. 3.14 of the draft report contains the text of an email sent by Cllr. Janice Long to the Labour Party internal investigation into this matter, which she provided you with a copy of. It includes the following passage at page 37 (presumably referring to an message which Cllr. Butt had sent to Labour councillors about the circumstances surrounding Cllr. Oladapo’s death): 

‘Cllr Muhammad Butt stated 'after December we lost contact with him.’ I could comprehend Tayo dying and our not knowing for a few days as there was not daily contact. But not knowing for 5/6 weeks is unfathomable. And the statement was wrong as we had been told that in January that he was getting better although he had had to be readmitted to hospital. So there was still contact after December.’

1.10 A final point on “honesty” which you may wish to take into account, in weighing up the balance of probabilities in this matter, is a comment made by Cllr. Pavey in his written statement to you at para. 3.7 (on page 33 of the draft report). Although I am not a member or supporter of any political party, and was not involved in any way with the campaign for leadership of the Labour Group between Cllr. Butt and Cllr. Pavey in May 2016, I am aware that such views might be coloured by that rivalry, just as Cllr. Butt’s close supporters also appear to have “rallied round the Leader” and stood up for him in your investigations. Despite this, I still think the following is a fair point:

‘However I also see detailed allegations from a very credible witness – which Cllr Butt has not produced evidence to rebut. I also see a potential motive for Cllr Butt to act in a cynical way – but I can see no reason for [XX] to act cynically. If it is one person’s word against another’s, I only see a motive for one of them to lie.’ 

On the matter of witness credibility, as para. 4.8 of your draft report says, the Labour Party’s own internal investigation into this matter found that: 

‘ … it was impossible to prove [XX]'s allegations were true beyond doubt, although there is no reason to believe that she doubted the truth of her allegations.’ 

This is the written statement Muhamed Butt provided to Richard Penn ahead of his interview:

Penn report on Tayo Oladapo to go to Council on Monday

The Independent Investigator's report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Cllr Tayo Oladapo will be presented to full Council on Monday. A separate report concerning a complaint against Cllr Muhammed Butt will be presented at a later date.

Penn writes:

In addition to this review of the events and the process I have been appointed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer to investigate a Members’ Code of Conduct complaint about the conduct of Councillor Muhammed Butt. Councillor Butt is the Leader of the Council and Leader of the majority Labour Group. In broad terms, it is alleged that Councillor Butt apparently misled the Council over the death of former Councillor Oladapo. I have been asked to investigate a number of issues and prepare a separate standards investigation report which will be considered by the Council’s Standards Committee.

Inevitably, this general review will overlap with the standards investigation and therefore the two reports are bound to contain some of the same information. However, they are intended to serve distinct purposes and will be reported accordingly.

Richard Penn's conclusions and recommendations: (LINK)

My review of the key events from the perspectives of the Council officials involved is set out in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.17 above.

My review has established:

1.     the information and facts known and understood by key officers and members of the Council throughout the relevant period and how this was formally reported at meetings of Full Council. 
It is clear that the reports presented to meetings of the Full Council from March 2015 to September 2015 and that led to approval of continued absence on the grounds of ill-health relied heavily on information that was provided by the Leader and other councillors who were in regular contact with Councillor Olapado including through visiting him in hospital. The real problem occurred at the beginning of 2016 when Councillor Oladapo left hospital and then suffered a relapse after the organ transplant. From that point on his whereabouts and situation were unknown so the information that was used in the report to the Full Council in February 2016 was based on hearsay and assumptions that were the only basis on which the recommendations for continued leave of absence could be made in good faith. 

2.     whether further or better information could reasonably have been obtained about former Councillor Oladapo prior to the meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2016; 
The report to Full Council on 18 January 2016 had requested approval for further absence by Councillor Oladapo following an organ transplant, but the week before the Council meeting the Council Leader had told her that Councillor Oladapo had been readmitted to hospital. At the pre meeting before the next Council meeting on 22 February 2016 the Leader referred to Councillor Oladapo’s further absence saying that he had not heard from Councillor Oladapo or his family but that he had become aware that Councillor Oladapo was no longer at the Royal Free Hospital. Councillor Butt said that he understood that Councillor Oladapo’s health had deteriorated and that his mother had taken Councillr Oladapo to die. The Chief Executive advised that she considered that the Council 
should now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a further report should not be submitted to the Council. The Chief Executive accepted the consensus view that this was inappropriate and reported to the Full Council meeting on 22 February 2016 that Councillor Oladapo was still unable to attend meetings due to his ill- health. The Council approved the recommendation that Councillor Oladapo’s absence from meetings be approved on the basis of his ongoing ill-health subject to review if required at the Annual Council meeting in May 2016. The report was approved on this basis. The Chief Executive said that the report was written on the understanding that Councillor Oladapo’s ill health was ongoing but in fact there had been a deterioration in his health which resulted in his return to hospital, and by the time of the Council meeting in February it was believed that he had returned to his family in Nigeria to pass away. This was not, however, confirmed and so would have been inappropriate to put in a public report. The Chief Executive’s view is that the Full Council considered and approved Councillor Oladapo’s ongoing absence in good faith based on what was known on that date and what was said in the report.

My conclusion is that these were very difficult and unusual circumstances – a young councillor but seriously ill and hospitalised, living on his own with no partner and no family members living in the UK and who were seemingly unresponsive to requests for information and uncommunicative about their relative’s situation. In my view no further or better information could reasonably have been obtained by the Council about former Councillor Oladapo’s situation before the Council meeting in February 2016.

3.  what, if anything, the Council could have done differently or better at the time; 

Given all the circumstances as set out in my review it is difficult to see what the Council could have done differently or better at the time. There was clearly uncertainty and a lack of reliable information about Councillor Oladapo’s whereabouts or situation in early 2016 and the Chief Executive had advised at the pre meeting for the February Council that she considered that the Council should now let Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council lapse and that a further report should not be submitted to the Council. However, the mood of the meeting was not to allow Councillor Oladapo’s membership of the Council to lapse.

4.  what, if any, lessons the Council should take from this experience; and 

In my view the particular circumstances in this case were unique and it is unlikely that the Council will ever have to deal with a similar case in the future. Each case should be dealt with on its facts and it is not necessary to devise a detailed procedure in an attempt to deal with any eventuality that might occur in an increasingly diverse and complicated world, based on what were a fairly unique set of circumstances. However, my review has identified some issues that warrant further consideration as set out in the next paragraph.

5.  what, if any, improvements the Council should implement. 

i.       the checks and balances to identify members at risk of breaching the six months rule already in place (as described in paragraph 2.15 of this Report) seem appropriate and proportionate. 


ii.     the Council’s current procedure for dealing with proposals for extension of absence also seems appropriate and should continue, but reports recommending extensions should be presented to Council only following consultation between the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Member and Executive Services and the relevant Group Whip. Councillors understandably rely on the content of those reports in agreeing to the continued absence of a colleague so they need to be able to rely on the integrity of any such report. it is crucially important, given the recent experience, that the most reliable information is obtained by officers and provided in the report. In most cases this will be quite straightforward but there will be cases in the future when additional effort by officers is required to establish the facts so far as possible. 


iii.    those members who are potentially likely to breach the six months rule because of their non-attendance should be given written notice of this by Members Services as soon as it becomes known through the various checks and balances. 


iv.    any report recommending extension of absence, and in particular the recommendation itself, should make clear whether the member’s absence is being approved indefinitely, until a specific date only or perhaps contingent on the member being required to take some action, for example providing further information. 


v.     consideration should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule. This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule. 


vi.    consideration should be given to whether councillors should be required to provide medical certificates just as Council staff are required to do to prove the reason for absence on ill health. 


vii.  consideration should be given as to whether the same approach should be used both in cases of terminal illness and in cases of continuing ill health. 
 

viii. consideration should be given to how cases in which childbirth, both pre and following the actual birth, is the cause for extended absence should be dealt with, and whether this applies to members who are partners in such circumstances. 


ix.    consideration should be given to other reasons for potential extension of absence including the illness of a partner or family member, and work commitments involving periods abroad 


x.     consideration should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed. Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by another member or an officer. 


Richard Penn


Butt faces another probe - this time from the Labour Party

Cameron Scott, Regional Director of the East of England Labour Party, has been asked to  investigate 'serious allegations about incidents  following the death of Cllr Tayo Oladapo' to establish the facts.

Scott has been asked to undertake the investigation because London Region staff are under pressure due to the Tooting by-election and the EU Referendum.

The Labour Group has been told that there is no intention to suspend anyone and 'this investigation implies no assumption of guilt ot wrongdoing' but it has to investigate allegations that have been received.

Councillors in the Labour Group have been asked to submit 'information or evidence they understand to be relevant to the allegations about the incidents.'

Cllr Butt already faces an independent inquiry by  Richard Penn, a former local authority CEO.

Muhammed Butt to face Standards investigation over Tayo Oladapo death announcement

Muhammed Butt - just a few questions to answer

Brent councillors have been informed that the independent investigation into issues involved in the death of Cllr Tayo Oladapo will be undertaken by Richard Penn, a former local authority chief executive. He will conduct an investigation into the Council's processes regarding the matter as well as the conduct of Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt which has been the subject of a Members' Code of Conduct complaint.

The two inquiries will overlap but the latter will be considered by the Standards Committee.  Cllr James Allie's recent appointment as Chair of that Committee was the subject of controversy in the light of a possible referral of Butt to the Standards Committee over the Cllr Oladapo affair. LINK
Sandra Kabir,  Chief Whip,  named in the appointment letter as someone who should be spoken to,  is now vice chair of the Standards Committee. As Chief Whip she was involved in the move against  Labour maverick Cllr John Duffy. Cllr Krupa Sheth, another committee member, is a close associate of Cllr Butt.

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive Officer told Brent councillors:

An independent investigator has been appointed to examine processes and the conduct of a councillor at Brent Council following the sad death of former Councillor Tayo Oladapo.

Richard Penn, a former local authority Chief Executive of two major metropolitan authorities with 35 years of public sector experience, is expected to start his investigations next week. Mr Penn has led a number of high profile examinations of local government, the health service, the police service and as Commissioner for Standards at the National Assembly for Wales.

Former Councillor Oladapo died at the Royal Free Hospital on 29 January 2016 following a long illness. However, Councillor Oladapo’s death was not confirmed to the council until 10 March 2016 and the death was not formally registered by his family until May.

Mr Penn’s investigation into the council process is expected to last around three weeks and it is intended that any recommendations from his report will be considered by Full Council in July.
 

The investigation concerning the councillor is expected to last around five weeks and will be reported to the Council’s Standards Committee.

Full terms of reference for the investigations  were sent to Mr Penn in the following letter:

Appointment to conduct investigations into Council processes and the conduct of an individual Councillor

I am writing to confirm that you have been appointed by the Council to conduct two separate but closely related investigations following the sad death of former Councillor Tayo Oladapo who was a member of the Council’s Labour Group.

Former Councillor Oladapo died at the Royal Free Hospital in the Borough of Brent on 29 January 2016 following a long illness.

For a long period of time prior to his death, former Councillor Oladapo was unable to attend any meetings of the Council and was therefore at risk of automatic disqualification. According to the Local Government Act 1972, if a member of a local authority fails throughout a period of 6 consecutive months from the date of his last attendance to attend any meeting of the authority then, subject to certain exceptions, he ceases to be a member of the authority unless the failure was due to some reason approved by the authority before the expiry of that period.

Former Councillor Oladapo was elected in May 2010 and last attended a Council meeting on 26 November 2014. Since then his absence from meetings of the Council was approved by Full Council on 2 March 2015; 20 May 2015; 7 September 2015; 18 January 2016 and 22 February 2016. Copies of the public reports considered at these meetings of Full Council are available on the Council’s website.

Following enquiries made by the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, on 10 March 2016, the Police notified the Council that former Councillor Oladapo had died on 29 January 2016 but that his death had not been registered. A copy of Ms Downs’ statement presented to the annual meeting of Full Council on 18 May 2016 is attached hereto.

In the circumstances, the Council recognises that the reporting of former Councillor Oladapo’s absence to Full Council and the approval of his absence raises issues which warrant review in the public interest. It is the Council’s objective to ensure that its processes are independently reviewed; the facts, as known and understood by the Council, and indeed the actual facts are formally reported; that any lessons are learned and that any improvements are implemented.

Against that factual background, you are requested to review/investigate the following:

1. The events leading up to the meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2016 concerning former Councillor Oladapo’s illness and continued absence from Council meetings;

 2. The information and facts known and understood by key officers and members of the Council throughout the relevant period and how this was formally reported at meetings of Full Council;




3.  Whether further or better information could reasonably have been obtained about former Councillor Oladapo prior to the meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2016; 


4. The Council’s general processes for reporting former Councillor Oladapo’s illness and continued absence from Council meetings; 


5. What, if anything, the Council could have done differently or better at the time; 


6.. What, if any, lessons the Council should take from this experience; and 


7.. What, if any, improvements the Council should implement. 


You are also requested to make any other recommendations that you consider appropriate and prepare a written report to the Chief Executive within a timescale of 2 to 3 weeks.

Arising from these same circumstances, on 13 May 2016, in my capacity as Monitoring Officer, I received a Members’ Code of Conduct complaint about the conduct of Councillor Muhammed Butt. Councillor Butt is the Leader of the Council and Leader of the majority Labour Group.

In broad terms, it is alleged that Councillor Butt apparently misled the Council over the death of former Councillor Oladapo. A copy of the full complaint is attached hereto and you are asked to investigate the following issues and prepare a separate standards investigation report which will be considered by the Council’s Standards Committee. You are asked to consider the contents of the email which is referenced in the complaint and address each allegation, save those which relate to the employment relationship between the then Labour Party official and the Labour party.

In your standards investigation report you are asked to make findings on the following:

1. Whether or not Councillor Butt was acting in an official capacity and whether the alleged conduct was capable of falling within the scope of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

2. Whether or not Councillor Butt breached the requirements or obligations of the Members’ Code of Conduct. If so, specify which paragraphs of the Code you find have been breached.

3. If applicable, the action that you recommend the Council should take in response to any finding of breach.

I also attach a copy of the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct and associated complaints procedure which you will need to consider carefully before preparing your standards investigation report. The expected timescale for this report is 4 to 5 weeks.

Inevitably, the terms of your general review will overlap with the standards investigation into the conduct of Councillor Butt and therefore your two reports are bound to contain much of the same information. As no doubt you will appreciate, however, they are intended to serve distinct purposes and will be reported accordingly.

I would suggest that your enquiries should extend in total to approximately 5 working days. If, in your assessment, a greater amount of time is needed, I would ask that you contact

The opportunity to interview and make enquiries of the officers and Members you consider are relevant to your review and investigation will be given to you.

It is suggested that in order to pursue the enquiries listed above you will need to interview the following officers:

Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive


Fiona Alderman, Chief Legal Officer


Thomas Cattermole, Head of Executive and Member Services

Peter Goss, Democratic Services Manager


Daniel Elton, Labour Group Political Assistant

I will strongly encourage any Members who you consider it necessary to interview to make themselves available. I suggest that the following may be most able to assist:

Councillor Butt – Leader of the Labour Group Councillor

Sandra Kabir – Chief Whip


Councillor Thomas – then Chair of the Labour Group

Councillor McLennan – the current Deputy Leader

The following members attended a pre-council briefing on 18th February 2016 and may be of assistance:

Councillor Butt – as above


Councillor Lesley Jones – then Mayor


Councillor Kansagra – then leader of the Conservatives


Councillor Colwill – current leader of the Conservatives and then Deputy Leader.

Yours sincerely,

Fiona Alderman

Chief Legal Officer