Brent Annual Standards Report - 11 complaints against councillors of which 3 resulted in public apologies

 This afternoon the  Audit and Standards Committee will be asked to note the complaints received by Brent Council against councillors.  The Annual Standards Report  LINK 2020  states:

 

During 2020, 11 complaints were received against different Councillors for alleged breaches of the Members Code of Conduct. Of these complaints, two resulted in public apologies being made on the Brent Council’s website as follows.

 

a)    The first apology resulted from an upheld complaint arising from the sharing of a link to a video discussion on the Dudden Hill Mutual Aid Group WhatsApp group. It was held to be in breach of paragraph4 (high standards), para 5 (seven principles of conduct in public life and para 12 (conduct... in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute) of the Member’s Code of Conduct.

 

b)    The second apology arose in relation to the attendance of two councillors at Ealing Road Temple during a prayer and reflection event. The complaint, that the councillors had brought their office into disrepute, was not upheld but both councillors acknowledged they had inadvertently breached the restrictions on such events in place at the time and were apologetic about how this may have appeared to the public.

 

 The first apology refers to Cllr Aslam Choudry (Labour, Dudden Hill)  who was alleged to have shared anti-semitic material. The final decision notice on the allegation can be read HERE

The second complaint was against Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council  and Cllr Sangani (Labour, Alperton)  and resulted in the apology below:

 

Apologies by Cllrs. M Butt and Sangani

Allegations were recently made of a breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct by Councillor M Butt and Cllr Sangani in relation to their attendance at Ealing Road Temple during a prayer and reflection event organised by the Brent Multi Faith Forum.  An allegation that the councillors had brought their office or the council into disrepute was not upheld.  Both councillors acknowledged that they had inadvertently breached the restrictions on such events in place at the time and were apologetic about how this may have appeared to the public.  Councillor Butt apologised both on his Facebook page and in a press statement.  Both he and Councillor Sangani have also given apologies to the Monitoring Officer, relevant extracts of which are set out below.

 

Apology from Councillor Butt:

On the 11th of June, Cllr Trupti Sangani and I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. …………..As Leader of this Council, whilst I do of course accept that a mistake was made regarding the time between what happened and what was sanctioned, I do believe that an argument could be made for the actions of those in attendance being a positive demonstration of well-intended community leadership. …………… the idea that such a gesture would upset anyone had simply not occurred to me for which I am happy to apologise unreservedly.

 

Apology from Cllr Sangani:

On the 11th of June, I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. ……………………I regret that in the confusion surrounding various government announcements that we were mistaken in how our brief moment of quiet reflection unfolded. I ……………. would like to apologise to them for what was a honest mistake made in good faith by well-intentioned people.

There are no details of the other complaints in the report.

 

Brent councillors' improved Code of Conduct for 'highest ethical standards'

From Brent Council
 
Brent Council is committed to the highest ethical standards in the work of its elected councillors and co-opted members, embodying the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

There's been a Code of Conduct in place for many years to help guide elected members, and Brent's recent full council meeting has just simplified and improved this code so that it is easier to understand and follow and so that it promotes the high standards of conduct expected of Brent members.

Click bottom left corner for full size document:

London parents overwhelmingly support councils' role in school standards and provision

From London Councils

Parents across the capital believe that a joint effort from headteachers, governors, central government and London boroughs is essential to keeping standards high at London schools, according to an exclusive YouGov poll commissioned by London Councils.

YouGov’s Ask The Parents survey questioned London parents about how important various players in the educational landscape are. The poll revealed that the majority of parents believe that headteachers, governors, London boroughs and central government all have an important role.

Cllr Peter John OBE, Deputy Chair of London Councils and Executive member with responsibility for education, said:

Understandably, the vast majority of parents see headteachers as being the most important players in ensuring the quality of education remains high. But a large proportion of mums and dads in London also see the government, boroughs and governors as having a vital role. 

In particular it is positive that 79 per cent of parents surveyed believe that London boroughs help to drive up standards in local schools. This number has risen by 5 per cent since last year’s poll. 

This suggests that parents across the capital believe that the success of the London model of education is linked to headteachers, boroughs, central government and school governors working together to ensure children gain the skills to excel in adult life. This model has delivered enormous improvements in London’s schools over the last 20 years.

The challenge for everyone with a stake in London’s education system is to drive further improvements. This is vitally important given the competitive London jobs market, which demands more and more from school leavers. This will involve working together to mitigate the impact of expected reductions to school budgets in London as a result of the new National Funding Formula.

YouGov’s poll for London Councils also found that:

• The majority of parents think London boroughs should have the power to influence and intervene in underperforming state, academy and free schools.
• 82 per cent of parents surveyed agree that London boroughs should be able to influence schools in their area to find more places or expand.
• The vast majority of parents (75 per cent) agree that London boroughs should have the final say in the location of new schools within their authority boundary. Only 11 per cent disagree with this.
• Most parents think London boroughs should scrutinise school accounts, with 79 per cent of those surveyed saying that boroughs should oversee the accounts of maintained schools. 72 per cent of parents polled felt boroughs should scrutinise academy accounts and 73 per cent said boroughs should have a role in overseeing free school accounts.
• 71 per cent of parents asked feel that the UK government should increase the amount of money it spends on education and schools.
• Almost two thirds of parents (65 per cent) agree that free schools should be set up in areas of basic need (i.e. looking at shortfalls between future demand for school places compared with existing capacity). 

 

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:

Standards at Brent Council – Will Standards Committee set a good example?

This guest blog by Philip Grant continues his attempt to ensure Brent Council displays high standards of conduct in public life.
 

In a blog article of 2 January 2016 LINK I referred to the Annual Report which Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer was presenting to its Standards Committee the following week, and some matters of concern which it raised. I was not able to attend the meeting, so was interested to read what the minutes of the committee meeting on 7 January would have to say about that Report. This is the text of the draft minute for that item, which appeared on the Council’s website last Friday:

‘5. Annual Report to the Standards Committee 2014 - 2015

The committee considered the circulated report of the Monitoring Officer which updated members on conduct issues and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer for the period December 2014 to December 2015.

The committee was informed that the process of recruiting Independent Persons would begin later in January. Councillor Warren enquired about the Council’s existing arrangements. He proposed that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile in order to give the role greater credibility by bringing forward their role in the process of considering complaints. Concern was expressed that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer and that such an arrangement was not followed in other boroughs.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report 2014/15 be noted;

(ii)          that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.’

While I am glad to see that Standards Committee did more than simply ‘note’ the Annual Report, which is what the Monitoring Officer had recommended they should do, the brevity of this minute raises more questions than it gives answers to.

1.     What was Cllr. Warren’s enquiry ‘about the Council’s existing arrangements’ (for Independent Persons?), and what was he told in reply to his enquiry?

2.     Which other committee members raised enquiries on, or made comments about, the Annual Report; what points did they raise and what answers were they given?

3.     Was Cllr.Warren’s proposal ‘that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile’ put as a formal motion, and what discussion (and vote?) took place on this proposal?

4.     Who was it that expressed concern ‘that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer’, and what reasons were put forward in support of that concern?

5.     Who put forward the resolution (not referred to in the Annual Report itself) ‘that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of Standards Committee’, and what views were expressed “for” or “against” this proposal?

The minutes of the meeting at which the previous Annual Report was presented (9 December 2014) give details of a number of questions raised and comments made by committee members; these are followed by a 17-line paragraph beginning: ‘In reply to the issues raised, Kathy Robinson advised that …’ which gives answers to the points raised. [For information: Kathy Robinson was the Council solicitor deputising for the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden.] Why was that precedent, and the good practice it showed of properly recording in the minutes what happened, not followed for the meeting on 7 January 2016? And how can the draft minute for item 5, quoted above, ‘be approved as an accurate record of the meeting’?

The purpose of Standards Committee, as set out on the Council’s website, is:

‘To promote high standards of conduct by councillors, to receive allegations that councillors may have failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct.’

At the heart of those high standards of conduct are the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (see footnote below for an explanation of what these principles should mean in practice), which all members must comply with whenever they are conducting any business of the Council.

I hope that the members of Standards Committee (to whom I am sending a copy of this blog article) will show openness and accountability, by amending the draft minutes for item 5, so that they record properly the actions of those who took part in the discussions on the Annual Report and the reasons given for those actions, so that the public can hold them to account. The amended minutes for the meeting on 7 January should then be posted on the Council’s website, in place of the draft minutes, as soon as possible after 21 March.

By amending the draft minutes, Standards Committee would demonstrate leadership, in promoting high standards of conduct. It would also avoid the integrity and honesty of committee members being called into question, which could be the case if it appeared that the minutes were deliberately being kept vague, as part of ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’. Failure to amend the draft minutes would provide further evidence for the criticisms I made about Brent Council in my open letter to its Chief Executive on 27 November 2015 LINK

So, please come on, Standards Committee, and set a good example over standards of conduct to other members, to encourage public confidence in Brent Council.

Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:

‘You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general conduct principles:

The General Principles

Selflessness – you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

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.

Objectivity – you should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – you should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.

Openness – you should be as open as possible about your actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.

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.

Could you be an 'Independent Person' to uphold Brent Council standards

At long last, after nudging by Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant, Brent Council has advertised for three 'Independent Persons' LINK  Closing date for applications is Sunday March 6th:
 

--> Background Information:
Under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 the way that Brent Council will deal with conduct complaints about its elected and co-opted members in its area is changing.
The statutory regulatory framework has been abolished and the Council is responsible for deciding how to deal with conduct issues at a local level, including adopting its own local code and determining what arrangements it will adopt to deal with complaints. 

The Act provides that the Council must appoint an Independent Person or Persons to assist the Council in promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct amongst its members.
Independent Persons are consulted on decisions to investigate complaints and before a decision is made on an investigated complaint. The Independent persons may also be consulted on other standard matters, including by the member who is subject to an allegation.

In addition, the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001 (the 2001 Regulations) and the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (the 2015 Regulations).  The 2015 Regulations, which came into force on 11 May 2015, amend the way that Brent Council will deal with the disciplinary and conduct complaints against the Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer. 

The decision to dismiss the officers has to be taken by the full council but not before full council has considered, amongst other things, any advice, views or recommendations from a ‘panel’ (comprising of ‘independent persons’ appointed in accordance with certain statutory rules).
The Council now wishes to appoint three Independent Persons to assist in discharging these responsibilities.  Full details of the role and responsibilities of the Independent Person are included in this Recruitment Pack.

A fixed allowance of £419 per annum is payable together with reimbursement of travel expenses. The appointment will be for a fixed term of 2 years

Skills and Competencies:

The Independent Person will have:

·     a keen interest in standards in public life.

·     a wish to serve the local community and uphold local democracy.

·     the ability to be objective, independent and impartial.

·     sound decision making skills

·     leadership qualities, particularly in respect of exercising sound judgement.

The Independent Person will:

·     be a person in whose impartiality and integrity the public can have confidence.

·     understand and comply with confidentiality requirements.

·     have a demonstrable interest in local issues.

·     have an awareness of the importance of ethical behaviours.

·     be a good communicator.

·     Be a person with unspent criminal record (Rehabilitation of Offenders Act applies)

Desirable additional criteria are:

·     working knowledge/experience of local government or other public service and/or of large complex organisations and awareness of and sensitivity to the political process.

·     knowledge and understanding of judicial/quasi-judicial or complaints processes.

Means of assessment will be by application form and interview.

NOTE:  You will be required to be contactable during normal working hours by telephone or by email and to be available to attend hearings, some of which may be held in the day time and at relatively short notice.

Eligibility for Appointment
A person cannot be appointed as an Independent Person if they are or were within a period of five years prior to the appointment:

·     a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority.

·     a member, co-opted member or officer of a parish council in the District Council’s area,

·     or a relative or close friend of the above. 

Any involvement in political activity or campaigning, particularly at local level, may affect public perceptions of independence.  Applicants are asked to indicate the nature of such activity and whether it may affect public perception of independence.  
    
Regulations do not prevent Independent Members who previously served on the Council’s Standards Committee from being eligible to apply for the role, as this can assist with continuity of experience and therefore assist in the work of the Committee.

Does Butt's interference with Ark Elvin application amount to improper conduct?

Wembley resident Jaine Lunn staged a one woman protest at Brent Planning Committee tonight against plans that residents think will affect their right to access the playing fields behind Copland  (now Ark Elvin) School in Wembley High Road.

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the school the Chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, accepted legal advice that they could not consider the Right of Way issue. She noted that residents might want to take up the issue under the Highways Act.

Raphael Moss, headteacher of the newly expanded Elsley Primary School spoke in favour of the new build and changes to the playing fields and raised issues about the safeguarding of children under current public access conditions.

A speaker from the Education Funding Agency Priority Building Programme poo pooed residents claims that they had had access to the fields as public land for decades, asserting (without any factual evidence cited) that they were 'incorrect'. In a threatening tone he warned the councillors that if they did not approve the plans the £26.5m earmarked for the new build might be lost. Responding to Cllr Colacicco who asked why green measures were always the last thing to be considered in such projects he said that such measures would require funding in addition to the £26.5m and a planning officer said that there was future proofing in the plans that meant they might be added later.

Speaker as a Wembley Central ward councillor, Cllr Sam Stopp, said he wasn't against a new school build replacing the dilapidated building (altholugh against academies on principle) but expressed concern that Muhammed Butt, the Leader of Brent Council had been consulted but not residents.

He later tweeted 'Very concerning lack of public consultation re. Ark Elvin app in Wembley Central. Further investigation needed, regardless of decision.' and 'Suggest Brent Scrutiny Committee reviews how we consult communities on planning applications. Enough is enough. Need to put communities first.'

Cllr Mitchell Murray said that she was concerned about the lack of respect for local resients shown during the consultation and remarked that the Council had not made a good job of the consultation.

Cllr Stopp has blogged on the issue HERE

The comment on Butt reflects disquiet I have heard is prevalent among both officers and councillors about what could be construed as improper conduct. As the Planning Committee is statutorily independent the Cabinet, and even more importantly the Leader, is not supposed to try and influence its decisions.

Evidence of interference? From the Kilburn Times website

Butt not only went to the site (see above) and talked with residents after the Planning Committee was made its site visit last Saturday, but then misrepresented the residents' views in a widely distributed email. He clearly has an interest not only as a proponent of the scheme in the Cabinet, but also as a governor at Ark Elvin and parent of a pupil attending the school.

Councillors on the Planning Committee could have been left in no doubt about what the 'Leader' wanted. They even referred to the fact that he had promised to write to the residents about their concerns during the meeting.

Perhaps something for Standards Commitee as well as Scrutiny?

Readers may be interested in an earlier planning case involving Cllr Butt LINK

Brent Council Standards: After the 'Missing Minutes' the 'Missing Agenda Items'

The Agenda for the October 1st Meeting of Brent Standards Committee LINK  has now been published and surprisingly does not include any reference to the case of Dr Helen Carr, nor a referral made by Philip Grant.

On September 18th Philip Grant wrote to the chair of the Standards Committee:

Dear Councillor Dixon,

I am writing to you in your role of Chair of Standards Committee.

On 18 June 2015 I wrote to Brent's Monitoring Officer to complain of multiple breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct by one of Brent's elected councillors. I have since made further allegations of breaches, or potential breaches, of the general conduct principles in the Code by the same councillor.

I would be grateful if you would liaise with the Monitoring Officer, please, to ensure that this matter is referred to Standards Committee on 1 October 2015, so that your committee can decide whether the alleged breaches should be investigated. Thank you.Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

I expect we will hear more of this.

Philip Grant's deputation on Brent Council standards of conduct will NOT be heard tonight

Philip Grant received the following message a few minutes ago:

Dear Mr Grant

This being my first day at work in Brent I am afraid that have only just got round to answering your email of yesterday.

The Council’s Monitoring Officer has ruled on this matter and her word is final.

I am sorry that this is not the response you wished to receive.

Yours sincerely

Carolyn Down

Full marks to Philip for trying and for his polite persistence on this issue.

Philip has sent the following reply:
 

Dear Ms Downs,

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. I realise that as this is your first day at Brent, it will have been a very busy one.

I can confirm that this is not the response I wished to receive. I had hoped to receive a response from Ms Alderman, after I asked her last Wednesday to reconsider her original decision. 

I accept that under Standing Order 39 'her word is final', but that should not mean she cannot change her mind, when it has been explained to her why her original decision was based on a misunderstanding of the true position, and there is plenty of time for her to put that error right. 

I will still attend this evening's Full Council meeting, and will bring my Deputation with me, so that I will be ready to present it, if allowed by Ms Alderman to do so. Best wishes,

Philip Grant