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

-->

 Guest post by Philip Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip Grant

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

Dear Mr Lane,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip Grant.

Brent By-election possibility lessens but...

Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala at Stonebride Boxing Club

 The potential for the postponement of the next Full Council Meeting to catch three Labour councillors in the six month attendance rule and thus force them to resign appears to have subsided.

Cllr Ahmad Shahzad is reporting to have attendeded a Pensions Committee and Cllr John Duffy an Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee.

This leaves Zaffar Van Kalwala who is on the Audit Committee which meets at 7.30pm tonight and Scrutiny which meets at 7pm on Wednesday.

That is of course as long as the meetings go ahead and are not abandoned, as Cllr Janice Long seemed to hint at Labour Group on Monday, by the Civic Centre fire alarm being set off.

If for some reason Kalwala does  not attend a by-election will be triggered in Stonebridge ward.

Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala has been active in support of the campaign to Save Stonebridge Adventure Playground which has also been backed by Dawn Butler, Labour's General Election candidate for Brent Central.

Ledden claims Brent Council tweeted in 'error' to 8,000 followers inviting them to speak at Monday's Full Council meeting - then bars Martin Francis from speaking

Regular reader will know about the issues around democracy and Brent Council (refresher course: LINK ) and these came to a ahead wsith the Labour landslide  with proposals to limit questions to the Cabinet and have just one 'super' Scrutiny Committee. At the same time Muhammed Butt tried to get a change in rules which would have meant the Labour leadership only being contested every four years.

A concession made to the public was that they would be allowed to address full Council.

On Friday August 29th Brent Council sent out this tweet: (Screen grab)

Clear enough you might think and having posted about the opportunity on this blog and on Facebook I sent in a request on Monday morning to have a deputation on the issue of the appointment of a Permanent Chief Executive.

The previous adminstration had accepted a report from Fional Ledden (Chief Legal Officer) to continue with Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert's acting appointment until after the May 2014 local elections. According to Ledden this was in order to ensure a smooth transfer to the Civic Centre, continuity during the election and because market conditions were not right for recruitment.

The then Liberal Democrat opposition had opposed this and called for an open and transparent recruitment process. LINK

I was surprised to receive a belated response from Fiona Ledden refusing my request as it had not been received by the  'deadline of August 29th'.

I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):

Thank you for your letter informing me that I cannot have a deputation to Full Council because my email was sent on Monday September 1st and the deadline was Friday August 29th.

I sent my email in response to a Tweet from Brent Council which quite clearly stated that the deadline was Noon on Monday September 1st. The Tweet was sent out by the Council on August 29th.

I therefore repeat my request to speak to full Council on the issue of appointing a Permanent Chief Executive.

I received the following letter  from Fiona Ledden in response:

Thank you for your email in response to my letter. 

Please accept our apologies for the confusion. The Tweet you refer to was published in error and this is something I shall follow up. 

I refer you to Standing Order 39 in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution “Any person wishing to make a deputation shall give written notice to the Director of Legal and Procurement of the title and summary of the content of the deputation not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting”. The deadline for deputations was 29 August 2014. 

As stated in my original response to your email, you will receive a written response to your question in due course.

Brent Council has about 8,000 followers, some of whom will have retweeted the notice, so that is some error!

I am used to Fiona Ledden's method when challenged, she basically seeks to grind you down and then eventually close down any correspondence.  There are several guest blogs on Wembley Matters that testify to this method.

Undaunted I replied again this morning:

Dear Ms Ledden,

I am afraid that i am not satisfied with your response.  An invitation that went out to almost 8,000 followers of Brent Council on Twitter, and was then further distributed by some of them, cannot simply be dismissed as an 'error'.

Furthermore even the 5 day's notice in Standing Orders does not say '5 working days'.  Even if we take that to be what is meant, a deadline of Noon on Monday would give 5-1/2 days between the deadline and the evening meeting on September 8th. That is Monday afternoon, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and the following Monday.

I therefore ask you to reconsider my request to speak as a delegation to the Full Council on September 8th on the issue of appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.

 You may not be surprised to learn that I have had no reply.  

If Muhammed Butt and his Cabinet were genuine in their commitment to give the public a voice in representation and decision making, it seems that their desires are being thwarted.

In the Standing Orders approved by the Council at their first meeting Fiona Ledden granted some fairly draconian powers over selecting delegations to speak at full Council meetings. No one from any party questioned these powers although they were commented on here:

Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

So if I complain the issue will get caught up in the complaints procedure and therefore cannot be raised by me or anyone else.  If I make a fuss then it could be labelled vexatious. And if I suggest that perhaps something is being hidden or avoided, or someone being protected, then that could be defamatory.

If all else fails then Ms Ledden can refuse the deputation on the the grounds that it is inappropriate for 'any other reason'.

Regular readers will remember that Ms Ledden wrote to  Wembley Matters 'requring' us to remove documentation about the Audit and Investigation team's report on allegations against Brent's Acting Head of Human Resources LINK We refused to comply on grounds of public interest.

Is there any councillor out there who will stand up and question this nonsense?

Kensal Rise Fake Email Investigation: Brent Council knows about progress but haven't told the public

Regular readers will remember that the Mystery of the Fake E-mails has not been solved. Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council,  having avidly pursued the matter early on seems to have lost his appetite for an answer to the question of who wrote the fake emails and to whose benefit? 

The emails were written in support of an earlier planning application for the redevelopment of Kensal Rise Library. Despite the investigation not being completed Brent Planning Committee approved the  recent planning application by the developer Andrew Gillick.

Now a Freedom of Information request has established that Simon Lane, Head of Audit and Investigations Team at Brent Council was last updated by Brent Police on the investigation on July 16th 2014.

Brent Council had no information on when the investigation was likely to be completed.

Surely it is of the utmost public interest for Brent Council  and Brent police to pursue this matter. An attempt was made to subvert the Council's planning process and in the course of this the identities of Brent citizens were stolen.

Rather than a Miss Marple mystery we now seem to have a rerun of the Hancock classic,The Last Page:

Brent Council warns governors on headteachers' pay and procurement

Brent Council has written to governors, clerks to governor bodies and school leadership teams warniong them of the need to comply with regulations on the pay of headteachers.

Clive Heaphy, Director of Finance and Corporate Services, wrotes that the Council's recent survey has:

...revealed that a significant proportion of (Brent) Governing Bodies have approved salaries for head teachers that exceeds the levels permitted by the school's head teacher group as defined by the school's pupil numbers...

He goes on to say that schools that have set an Indiivudal School Range above the headteacher groups are:

 ...on average remunerating headteachers in excess of an additional 10% per annum - much more in many cases. While some schools have provided acceptable reasons for paying above the cap, the review has demonstrated that a large number of Governing Bodies have allowed incremental increases in head teacher pay either without good reasons or  factors outside the  criteria set out in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions guidance.

 Heaphy says if the Governing Body becomes aware that this is the situation it is incumbent on them to take appropriate action to remedy the situation within a reasonable period of time.

He concludes:

I apologise if this letter is direct but the situation within Brent schools is a serious one and I need to be sure as the person ultimately responsible for all school spending in the Borough, that Governors, Clerks and Leadership Teams are fully aware of the framework under which you operate.

Last week Heaphy and the Brent Audit Team experienced close questioning at the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee over this issue and the problem of excessive and exploitative procurement and leasing agreements entered into by schools.

Clive Heaphy frankly told the meeting that he was not confident of schools' capacity to take action on these issues. Stating that he was 'not happy with the state of things'  he said he would continue to put pressure on schools.In future he would be requiring local authority schools to make an annual return on headteacher pay. Brent had no statutory authority over academies or free schools.

Cllr Michal Pavey asked if this amounted to a admission that before these actions the authority's monitoring had been 'inadequate'. Heaphy denied this stating that other local authorities, uncovering similar issues, were coming to Brent for advice. Lesley Gouldbourne for the teacher associations welcomed the 'very full' report given to the Committee and congratulated the council on its proactive approach. She warned if the impact of financial mismanagement on both on schools' reputations and on taking money away from children's learning resources. Gouldbourne asked for more resources to be devoted to auditing but Cllr Mary Arnold (lead member for Children and Families) said Brent already devoted more hours to school audits than other boroughs.

Several councillors declared an interest at the beginning of the meeting as they were governors of various schools in the borough. Cllr Michael Pavey was particularly forensic asking if the headteacher's responsibility to advise governors on the regulations about headteacher pay was not in itself a conflict of interest.

It emerged that no secondary school and only half of Brent's primary schools now use Brent Council's  in-house payroll system and so early clues to over-renumeration could not be spotted through HR officers' monitoring when glaring discrepancies, such as a head of a small school being paid more than the head of a much larger one, became apparent.

Additionally in the Copland case, as a  grant maintained school it had appointed its own auditors and checks had been much less in-depth than those of the Brent Audit Team. The Copland case, involving additional payments, was different from the headteacher pay scale issue. Members expressed concern that, as more schools became academies. or free schools were set up, the possibility of further such cases in terms of both pay and procurement would increase.

The second major issue, procurement and leasing,  produced more searching questions from the Committee members. They were told that a small number of schools had entered arrangements with Finance Companies and that the amount involved was 'very material' in a small number of schools. In five schools the amounts were such that it could affect their financial future.Brent Council was taking group legal action on behalf of a number of schools over leasing arrangements in a process that could take 10 months.

Asked about what action the Council could take on such issues officers replied that when schools went into deficit the Council would agree a Deficit Reduction Plan requiring the school to return to a balanced budget within a reasonable period.. Challenged on what action could be taken if a governing body were uncooperative or did not agree with what had been requested Simon Lane explained that the Council did have powers but these were draconian, employing a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The governing body could be removed but this needed the permission of the Secretary of State,  or delegated financial powers taken away from the governing body with the council running the finances. The schools could challenge the latter and  the council didn't  have the resources to run the budget themselves.

There was further discussion about financial training for governors and whether that should me mandatory, at least for chairs, and on recruiting governors with financial expertise. No information was produced on how many governors had taken advantage of the financial training on offer and whether all schools had been involved.

In terms of a time line Simon Lane from the Audit Team said that headteacher pay should be regularised within 3 months; the legal case resolved in 10 months and that individual school investigations were ongoing but an update would be produced in six months.

It was good to see a Scruitiny Commiitee doing its job thoroughly. I  fact time ran out and the very important issue of Children's Safeguarding was postponed until a later meeting. 

Serious concerns must remain over financial mismanagement, particularly as council staffing is reduced, schools become more autonomous, and out-sourcing become more prevalent. I think what concerns me most about this is that these issues take way from the main function of headteachers, governors and schools: improving teaching and the learning of pupils.

School financial mismanagement under scrutiny tomorrow

Following the controversy at Copland High School over allegedly illegal bonus payments, Brent Council has tightened up its audit arrangements. The 'Copland Six' are still to stand trial but meanwhile several other head teachers and other staff have been suspended while the possibility of financial management irregularities are investigated. Some have faced disciplinary action leading to dismissal.  There has been publicity about these events in local newspapers and the Evening Standard and the Times Educational Supplement.

Some commentary has suggested that this is a particular problem in Brent while others have suggested that the problem occurs elsewhere but because of Brent's experience it has been better at uncovering it. Generally there is a concern that as schools become more independent of local councils, being set up as 'free' schools or when they convert to academy status, that there may be more occurrences.The report from the Director of Finance and Corporate Services and the Director Children's Services which will be considered on Thursday by the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee states that Copland, as a foundation school, had made its own audit arrangements, rather than be visited by the local authority team, until 2009: 'The significant additions (to pay) were not picked up during any of the external audits conducted annually at the school.'

Although there may be deliberate attempts as fraud it may also be the case that some of the occurrences are the result of inexperience or incompetence on the part of headteachers and governing bodies. Although the local authority offers financial training to headteachers they do not have a business management background and their main task remains the management of teaching and learning.

Two main issues have emerged which the report says the Council has addressed:

Senior Leadership Pay: a key issue that had been identified through the audit process relates to schools complying with the statutory requirements regarding the setting of pay levels for Headteachers and other Senior Leadership posts. The regulations are complex but nevertheless compliance with them is a statutory requirement and a comprehensive action plan was put in place by the Council to both support and challenge schools to ensure compliance. A great deal of progress has been successfully made as set out in Appendix C which shows the detailed action undertaken by the Council. Further on-going work is necessary to ensure continued
compliance with the regulations.

Leasing: In 2010, the Council identified that a number of schools had entered into very unfavourable leasing arrangements with large finance companies for the hire of equipment such as photocopiers. The Council is of the view that these leases should be treated as being void from the outset, as the schools in question did not have the legal power (‘vires’) to enter into them. If the leases were enforceable, they would have a negative impact on the schools’ financial positions. There are various grounds as to why the Council argues the leases should be considered void. The Council has taken the following action in order to protect the public funds exposed to these purported leases:

• Sent a number of letters and uploaded intranet postings clarifying the importance of complying with the leasing requirements set out in the Council’s Financial Regulations.
• Arranged for Council officers to meet with school officers where appropriate in order to discuss leasing issues.
• Hosted a number of presentations at Governor, Headteacher and Bursar meetings, clarifying the requirements of a lawful lease and offering support to schools that may have ostensibly entered into leases which are void in law, in order to encourage schools to obtain legal advice.
• Referred schools to the Council’s internal and external solicitors who are able to advise the schools (the content of the advice is confidential and subject to legal privilege).
• Obtained advice from a QC (the content of which is confidential and subject to legal privilege).
• Facilitated court action: A number of schools have stopped paying the sums purportedly due under these purported leases. As a result, one finance company has issued legal proceedings against two separate schools for amounts allegedly due. The Council’s solicitors have been instructed by the two schools to defend these claims. The schools are counter-claiming for restitution of the sums paid under the purported leases. The cases are on-going.
• Released guidance to all schools setting out the framework agreements
available, in order to help schools purchase or lease equipment at favourable rates.
• Hosted regular leasing / procurement training sessions with school bursars.

Using a traffic light system of Assurance about Audut Outcomes for audits in 2011-12 the report gives 7 primary schools a green light (substantial), 9 an amber (limited) and 4 a red (nil). The report gives a long list of issues that have been identified 'in the majority of schools' over the last two years. These cover Governance, Procurement, Unofficial Funds, Budgeting, Income and Banking.

The Head of Audit's opinion reported to the Audit Committee for 2010-11 sums up some of the issues:

I also remain concerned about the apparent lack of financial control within a significant minority of the council’s schools and the general approach to internal audit findings. Whilst schools are responsible for their own budgets, they are required to adhere to both legal requirements and to financial regulations issued by the council. These ensure public money is properly spent and accounted for. A number of schools are demonstrating a lack of compliance with basic procurement regulations. This is placing schools at risk of failing to achieve value for money and at risk of potential legal challenge where EU procurement regulations apply.

In addition, a number of schools are failing to adhere to the national rules concerning teacher’s pay, specifically in relation to head teacher pay being outside the prescribed bandings determined by the school size. Although, in certain circumstances schools are permitted to pay above the maximum group range, I consider that in a number of cases these circumstances may not apply and school governing bodies may be paying above the ranges set out within the national conditions document to facilitate incremental increases in pay once the natural pay cap, relative to the size of school, has been reached. This is further exacerbated by Governing Bodies not always being diligent in their recording of the reasons for granting permission to exceed to cap thus placing the school at risk of challenge.

In response to the issue of headteacher (and thus deputy headteacher) pay being outside the criteria published in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD)  the Children and Families Department in October 2011 asked chairs of governors to return headteacher pay information. The report states that 'many schools failed to respond to this request in a reasonable timescale and it is only now that a full picture is emerging' and schools are being supported and challenged to ensure compliance with the STPCD.

Clearly this report raises important issues about probity, accountability and governance and deserves thorough discussion tomorrow.

The meeting takes place at 7pm in Committee Rooms 1 and 2 at Brent Town Hall on Thursday  July 19th Agenda: HERE

Declaration of interest: I am chair of governors at two primary schools and a former primary headteacher - all in Brent. I do not have a Swiss bank account!