Blood on the carpet at Brent Civic Centre as senior management jobs slashed-but what about the new jobs created?

I am now able to publish the details of the senior management restructuring that Brent Council are about to consult on. The proposals are aimed at cutting £1.4m from the Council's budget.

In addition to to the posts in red, above the Head of Sports and Parks, Libraries and Heritage and Partnership and Engagement are proposed to be deleted along with the Head of Business Intelligence.

Unusually there are no authors cited on the report (which is available below) but the process will be managed by Interim Chief Executive Christina Gilbert and Human Resources Director Cara Davani.

One high profile casualty could be Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement. Ben Spinks, Assistant Chief Executive, has only been in post a short time - since the last restructuring...

As well as the deletion of posts, new posts are to be created. Sharp-eyed insiders have pointed out that a new post of Chief Legal Officer has been ring-fenced to three Hay graded lawyers, which includes Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts.

None of the other new posts have been ring-fenced. The two Operational Directors in Finance will have to compete for the remaining post.

The abolition of the Environment Department follows the privatisation of most of its service through the controversial  Veolia Public Realm contract.

Insiders suggest that a new job, Chief Operating Officer, at Hay 2 (the lower the number the higher the salary)will be extremely sought after - perhaps by Cara Davani herself.

Other jobs created are Operational Director (Strategic Commissioing), Head of Procurement, Operational Director (Community Services), Head of Performance and Programme Management, Chief Legal Officer (see above), Head of Partnerships and Transformation, Head of Culture, Head of Digital Services, Head of Brent Customer Services.

As readers will know one of the regular allegations made by Brent Council workers in comments on this blog  is that people are being eased out of their jobs by a variety of methods, often accompanied by gagging clauses, in order to make way for people who formerly worked at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council.

Some are asking if this is the most audacious move yet in that strategy.

Brent’s approach to consultation – has anything changed?

Acknowledgement: http://myhome.iolfree.ie/~lightbulb/Research.html

Four years ago, in the infancy of this blog, I published an article entitled 'Is consultation a con?'  LINK which suggested a series of possible definitions so that the purpose and limits of consultation was transparent. Since then we have had many 'consultations' in Brent and the problem remains as this 'Case Study' Guest Blog by Philip Grant as well as the earlier posting by 'Malinowski'  shows.

1. Introduction: In 2011 we witnessed a disastrously mishandled consultation process over Brent’s Libraries Transformation Project, when Council Officers treated the views expressed by local residents with contempt, yet still managed to get the Executive to rubber-stamp their plans. The repercussions of that episode still continue today. Brent Council has moved on, and now has enshrined in Article 10 of its Constitution the following commitments:

1.  The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication.

2.  The Council recognises that meaningful participation can only take place:

• in an environment where people are better informed about local services;

• where community spirit is fostered so that people care enough to want to take part, and are encouraged to do so; and

• where council decisions can be seen to reflect the views and concerns of local residents.

That is very good, but has anyone told Council Officers about this? Let me share with you a genuine “Case Study”, which has happened during the past three weeks.

2. Case Study: I am one of those people who ‘care enough to want to take part’, and along with five other members from local history societies accepted the invitation to take part in a stakeholder consultation meeting at the Civic Centre to help develop a new Museum and Archives Strategy. It was chaired by Neil Davies (Strategy and Service Development) [“ND”], who told us that the draft strategy would be prepared in time to go out for consultation at “Brent Connects” in January 2014, with the Council deciding on the new strategy in the Spring. He had already received views from “internal stakeholders”, and our views would be among several inputs into the draft strategy by “external stakeholders”.

Although most of the meeting was positive, with plenty of participation and many sensible ideas put forward, it got off to a bad start. One of the first points raised by us was why a staff restructuring exercise was taking place now at the Museum and Archives, when surely the time to do this would be after the new Strategy had been consulted on and decided, which would still give plenty of time before the new facilities open at Willesden Green in Spring 2015. ND did not appear to know about the restructuring. Sue McKenzie (Head of Libraries, Arts and Heritage) [“SMc”] was also at the meeting, but she refused to discuss her staff restructuring plans, as these were ‘an internal matter’.

I had already heard a little of what the staff restructuring plans were, and emailed that evening (16 October) to Sue Harper (Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services) [“SH”] to express my concern about the consultation process being undermined. It appeared that SMc was trying to push through a restructuring by December 2013, based on her own view of what a new Museum and Archives Strategy should be, while the consultation process was actually in progress which should decide that strategy. I also explained that if the experienced existing staff lost their jobs, which seemed a likely result of SMc’s proposals, it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage Services.

I received a “reply” from Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods) [“JI”] on 18 October, which did not answer either of the points I had raised. Instead it explained that SMc couldn’t discuss the restructuring plans in public, because ‘the impact on our teams is something for Sue to manage carefully, sensitively and supportively with those individuals who are affected.’ (My reply to this point was: ‘I suggest that you visit RK and MBB in the cramped basement storeroom at George Furness House where they currently have to work, and ask them, face-to-face, whether the proposed restructuring which they have been faced with since 18 September has been managed 'carefully, sensitively and supportively.' – to the best of my knowledge, no such visit has yet been made.)

The rest of JI’s long email to me was a justification of the restructuring exercise, including several quotations from reports by national bodies, most of which I have later discovered was “copied and pasted” from a document written by SMc, topped off with the claim that: ‘the proposals have been discussed with The National Archive who are supportive of the proposals’. In my reply (19 October) I pointed out that the quotations merely gave good reasons why a review of Museum and Archives Strategy should be taking place, that consultation on this was taking place, and that ND had told us at our stakeholder meeting that the “discussions” she was putting forward as support for SMc’s restructuring proposals were actually one of the inputs into his consultation on the new strategy.

My reply to JI also restated, without any room for doubt, what were the two issues which needed to be resolved, that the restructuring should not be taking place now because it went against Brent’s commitments on consultation, and that if the restructuring did take place now it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage services. As before, her “reply” (23 October) ignored both of these points, again defending the staff restructuring and saying it was: ‘an internal matter, and Sue Mckenzie is fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures. The views of the affected staff will be carefully considered when the final decision on the future structure of the museum and archive is made.’ (We will return to those ‘proper HR processes’ later.)

JI’s email also said that: ‘The staff restructure will ensure flexibility to deliver the new museum and archive strategy’ (which turned out to be another “copy and paste” from SMc). My response (also 23 October) was:

‘How can you be sure, when that strategy is still not even in draft form? SMc has submitted her ideas to ND, as an internal stakeholder, but if his consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy is to have any credibility, she should not be implementing a staff restructuring in Museum and Archives, presumably based on her own view of the future staff needs of Museum and Archives, until after the Strategy has been properly decided. That is the key point of principle here, and that is why the Museum and Archives staff restructuring must be halted.’

I don’t know about you, but I thought that was a pretty convincing argument. Whether JI was convinced I will never know, because she did not attempt to counter it, replying on 24 October (please note the date):

‘The position is unchanged.  I reiterate, the new team will be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the new strategy and ensure that the new museum and archive provides a service that is relevant to a wider group of our residents. You will be consulted on the museum and archive strategy as appropriate. The Council will not enter into further correspondence on the staff restructure.’

Now, I thought that on 16 October I had raised an important point with a Council Director which needed to be considered and resolved. In several exchanges of emails I had put that point, and the reasons supporting the view I was taking. In return, the Senior Council Officer I was dealing with side-stepped the key issue, did not try to resolve anything and then refused to discuss the matter further. What could I do? Well, I don’t give up if I feel I have an important and valid point, and ‘the Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication’, so I went back to the top.

I wrote straight away, jointly to SH and Cllr. Roxanne Mashari [“RM”, who has been copied in on all of the correspondence, but has not contacted me at all], saying that the issue I had raised did need to be resolved, and drawing attention to JI’s references to a “new team”:

‘As SMc and JI are apparently already determined that there will be a "new team", what chance is there of any genuine consideration being given to the alternative proposals which I understand the existing Archives team (the Museum Curator having left last month) intend to put forward?

The implementation now of a staff restructuring by SMc raises similar concerns over how genuine the consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy will be. I am sure that ND will do a conscientious job in producing a new Strategy document, but behind his back SMc will already have put in place the "new team" that she has chosen. Until the new Strategy has been properly consulted on and decided, how can anyone really know whether the existing team, or at least some members of it, could deliver Brent's future Museum and Archives Strategy as well as, if not better than, any "new team"?’

Having asked some important questions, what answers did I get to them from SH on 28 October? None!

‘Thank you for your email of 24 October.  In recognition of the fact that you have a number of concerns outstanding, in line with our complaints procedure, I have asked the Council’s Complaints Manager, Phillip Mears, to undertake a first stage complaints investigation on my behalf.  Once Mr Mears has completed his investigation I will write to you with my decision.’

I responded that I had not actually made a complaint, and that although there might be some serious concerns which could be looked at to see whether they could have been handled better, the key point was to put any staff restructuring “on hold” until after the new Museum and Archives strategy had been properly consulted on and decided. I heard nothing further until SH replied on 4 November, saying:

‘As you know, I have asked Philip Mears to investigate your concerns as part of the Council’s complaint procedure and he will reply to you shortly. I am not prepared to get into further correspondence on the subject whilst this investigation is underway as in my experience it is likely to confuse the issue.’

So, yet again, no attempt by a Senior Council Officer to resolve an important point raised by a concerned participant in what was supposed to be a genuine Brent consultation exercise. By the time it was sent, SMc had issued her Final Decision Paper (“FDP”) on her staff restructuring proposals. It turned out that much of JI’s email to me of 18 October, and parts of some others, had been “copied and pasted” from the FDP, most of which had been written before SMc received the comments and alternative proposals from the staff she was supposedly consulting. And as for ‘the views of the affected staff will be carefully considered’, the thoughtful and sensible alternatives, which would ensure a good front-line service for the public and be delivered with a slightly larger cost saving, were rejected. The reason was because they did not meet the future service requirements (SMc’s own vision of what the new Strategy should be) set out in her consultation document. 

How a consultation which only allows you to give the answer that the person “consulting” with you wants can be treated as ‘fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures’, I fail to understand. It was a sham, and because of it, the existing team at Brent Archives will have their jobs “deleted”. They will be able to apply for “new posts” (several grades above the level they are currently employed at) which they are unlikely to get, especially with SMc also dismissing their request that she should not be on the panel interviewing them, because of her conflict of interests in the matter. 

What could I do about it? Well, I have made a detailed formal complaint to Brent’s Interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, against the actions of three Senior Brent Council Officers. She has refused to put the staff restructuring “on hold”, so even if my complaint is eventually upheld, it will probably be too late to save the jobs of the staff who will be key to delivering the sort of front-line Archives service that “external stakeholders” would like to see as part of the new Museum and Archives Strategy.

3. Conclusion. You may think I am naive (you would probably be right) but I believe that much more positive results can be achieved for our community by local people, Council Officers and Councillors working together. That is what I try to do in practice, but it needs to be seen to work, and at the moment it is not working.

My experience here is that Senior Officers have not learned the proper lessons from the way that they and, on their advice, Brent’s Executive mishandled the Libraries Transformation Project consultation exercise in 2011. Instead, the lesson they seem to have taken from it is that as they “got away with it” then, they can do the same again. For things to improve, Senior Officers need to set an example, and embrace the Council’s commitments on consultation. They should not, as in this case study, undermine or ignore proper consultation procedures. They should treat with respect, and seek to work together with, Councillors, staff and Brent’s citizens, in an open, transparent and reasonable manner. If they cannot, or will not, they should seek employment elsewhere.

If you have any comments or experiences to share, either for or against the views I have set out, please “post” them below, but no abuse, please. If any of the Officers I have mentioned wish to have a right of reply, I hope that Martin will allow it to them. A big “Thank You” to Martin for giving me the chance to write this “guest blog”, and thanks to you for reading it.

Philip Grant.

Postscript from Hitchhikers Guide to the Planet on Planning Consultations

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 

Brent Budget gap points to more cuts unless Councillors say enough is enough

The Brent Executive on Monday will receive the latest 3 year budget forecast which has been revised from that presented in February. The figures assume the Council Tax freeze will continue and a pay inflation of 1% in 2013-14 and 2% thereafter. Allowance is made for restructuring and redundancy costs of £2.6m.

The basic figures:

	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17
	£m	£m	£m
Budget Gap at Council Feb 2013	20.4	17.1	17.3
Reductions in Revenue Support Grant	2.0	13.0	1.0
Business Rate Top-Up	-0.1	-0.4	-0.2
Additional Council Tax Freeze Grants	-1.0	-1.1	2.1
Business Rates - share of growth from baseline	-1.9	-0.7	-0.6
New Homes Bonus	0.5	2.7	-0.1
Collection Fund Surplus	-2.4	2.4
Council Tax Base	-1.3	-0.2	-0.3
Other Grants	-1.1	0.8
Capital Financing	-2.0
Latest Budget Gap	13.1	33.6	19.2

Clearly more cuts are looming and just in case Councillors get any ideas about refusing to set a budget or raiding the reserves, Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance warns in his report:

A local authority must budget so as to give a reasonable degree of certainty as to the maintenance of its services. In particular, local authorities are required by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to calculate as part of their overall budget what amounts are appropriate for contingencies and reserves. The Council must ensure sufficient flexibility to avoid going into deficit at any point during the financial year. The Chief Financial Officer is required to report on the robustness of the proposed financial reserves.

 Under the Brent Member Code of Conduct members are required when reaching decisions to have regard to relevant advice from the Chief Finance Officer and the Monitoring Officer. If the Council should fail to set a budget at all or fail to set a lawful budget,contrary to the advice of these two officers there may be a breach of the Code by individual members if it can be demonstrated that they have not had proper regard to the advice given.

I would argue that Labour councillors must consider whether committing a  'a breach of the Code' is more of a crime than implementing cuts that will damage services to the most vulnerable.

Krutika Pau to take early retirement following Brent Council's restructuring

Photo: The Globe

 Krutika Pau, Brent's Director Children and Families, has announced that she will be taking early retirement and will leave the Council at the end of this month.

This follows the restructuring of the Council's corporate management whcih will see a new post of Strategic Director (Education, Health and Social Care) who will manage education, adult and children's social care, and public health.

An interim Director of Children and Families will be appointed through an internal process to bridge the gap before the new structure comes into effect. Sara Williams is currently assistant director.

Under Krutika Pau's directorship standards of achievement in Brent schools have risen often to above the national average, but  almost all Brent's non-faith secondary schools have become academies and a crisis at Copland High School is currently hitting the headlines. Pau has faced criticism for not taking a stronger line on forced academies and being too accommodating on free schools.

Dr Pau's resignation also follows the change in councillor leadership leadership on Chiodlren and Families with Michael Pavey replacing Mary Arnold.

Some clues about Krutika's views can be found on this April 2013 post on The Globe LINK

Krutika Pau is the Director of Children and Families at Brent Council. She previously worked for the then Department for Education and Skills, where she led on the development of city academies across London. She was appointed director of children and families at the council in September 2010.

Q: What are your proudest achievements?
A: An outstanding education enables young people to follow their passions and can be an exit strategy out of poverty.  There is an overall trajectory of improving educational standards in Brent and our young people are more likely to continue into higher education and are succeeding in securing places at the very best universities. However, we cannot afford to be complacent and need to ensure that all children in Brent are receiving a top quality education of which we can be proud.
Q: Please tell us about your current position?
A: I am the statutory director of children’s services in the London Borough of Brent.  There are over 70,000 children in Brent and currently the Council is the corporate parent for 344 children.  My department works directly with children, parents and carers, schools and a wide range of partners, including health, police and the voluntary sector. I work closely with elected councillors to ensure we continue to improve outcomes for all our children and families, particularly the
most vulnerable.
Q: What has been the biggest obstacle in your career?
A: Of course you get some lucky breaks, but I have always tried to take responsibility for developing my own career. You need to be self aware and continue to cultivate your strengths whilst working on those skills which require further improvement. You have to be courageous and seek opportunities to step out of your comfort zone.
Q: Who has been the biggest influence on your career to date?
A: I have been very fortunate to have had a handful of key people who have actively supported me along my journey.  However, the strong public service ethos demonstrated by my father throughout my childhood, has been like a golden thread running through my career. This provided me with a firm value base including the key characteristics of perseverance, resilience and reflection which act as a moral compass in turbulent times.
Q: What is the best thing about your current role?
A: The ability to lead across a whole system to build alliances and translate strategic vision into local improvement plans.  My role gives me a vantage point – a helicopter view of needs, resources, solutions and connections.  This is essential in order to navigate through a complex set of challenges as we move forward with an ambitious agenda to deliver sustained improvements for Brent residents.
Q: And the worst?
A: Seeing the impact of neglect and abuse on children by adults who should be keeping them safe and supporting them to grow into happy and confident young people. We need more people to come forward as potential foster carers and adopters – ordinary people have the ability to make an extraordinary difference in the lives of our most vulnerable children.
Q: What are your long term goals?
A: I am passionate about improving the life chances and choices of all children and young people and I want for them, what I want for my own children….the very best opportunities so they can fulfil their potential in life. Sadly many children have the odds stacked against them at a very early stage and some never recover from this poor start. I will continue to improve the system which supports the most vulnerable children and families, wherever they are, to overcome the barriers which prevent them from leading fulfilling lives.
Q: If you were marooned on a desert island, which historical figure would you like to spend your time with and why?
A:Not quite a historical figure, but I think it would be interesting to spend some time with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader.  She comes across as a woman of great conviction, dignity and inner strength.

Brent restructuring steams ahead but will have to be done again in 2-3 years

The proposed structure

I went to yesterday's Brent General Purposes Committee on a high - not in anticipation of an exciting meeting but because I was buzzing with optimism from an event I had just attended at Chalkhill Primary School. The Sports Hall had been full of families, not just parents but grandparents, aunts and uncles and children ranging from babes in arms to secondary school students.  The occasion was the graduation ceremony for the 8 week FAST (Families and Schools Together) course that had taken place at the school. Among those working with families alongside school staff was the chair of the Chalkhill  Residents Association. A real community effort. The hall was buzzing with chatter and lively with children dressed up for the occasion playing amongst the tables or tucking into food and drink while some adults were in dazzling national costume.. Real pride was on display when each family went up on the stage to get their certificate to cheers from the audience.

FAST aims to provide a fun and relaxed space for families to experience a mixture of play and learning activities, hands on coaching and support for parents and carers. Each week families can win a resource hamper to help support children's learning in the home. The programme has high success rates in improving family relationships and links between home, school and the local community. The project is run by Save the Children and funded by Morrison's.

So it was with renewed faith in our local authority community schools that I went to speak to the General Purposes Committee about the restructuring of the senior management at the council and the children and families department.

I had three main concerns. The first was by combining adults' and children's social care with education and public health that the Council was creating a 'high risk' department. One risk was that these were areas where things could go badly wrong as we know from previous child protection cases as well as concerns over the treatment of vulnerable adults. The second risk was that these are areas under huge budgetary pressures and the eventual cost of public health is not yet known.

The second concern was that that education and children's social care were being separated. They had not worked well together when they had been separate departments and as a headteacher I had seen improvements in processes when they came under one director. I said it was essential that there were clear lines of responsibility in terms of child protection and safeguarding. The operational director would be dealing with complex cases on the ground but the strategic director would have overall responsibility.

The third concern was much broader and about the current fragmentation of the local school system with academisation and free schools. I said that Gladstone Park Primary's experience had given other heads the jitters and it was essential that there was strong leadership in education that championed the role of the local authority and demonstrated that the LA had the capacity to help schools improve. In that regard the reduction in the role of the School Improvement Service and the creation of the Brent Schools' Partnership introduced a note of uncertainty underlining the need for strong leadership.

I noted that when the post of Director of Children and Families last became vacant that it was ring-fenced to existing council staff. At the time this was criticised  LINK on the grounds that schools by statute have to advertise vacant head and deputy head posts nationally so as to have the widest possible field to select the best quality candidate. I argued, recognising that there might be HR issues involved, that this should also apply to these vital posts - Brent children and adults deserve the best.

Christine Gilbert, responded to some of these points in her presentation. She recognised that this would be a 'high risk' department but said that the safeguarding aspects should carry on much as they are now. She said that the strategic directors would have to have a good grasp of the operational issues. Gilbert told councillors that there would need to be another restructuring in two or three years as further cuts were made in funding. Muhammed Butt, chairing the meeting, said that the only constant was change.

Cllr Mary Arnold challenged my suggestion that there was a risk in the Brent Schools Partnership lacking an independent critical voice and said that the partnership was with the local authority which would retain core services and offer services that schools could buy into: it was a schools partnership with the local authority.

Cllr Jim Moher expressed support for my call for strong leader for education in the face of fragmentation. Cllr Pavey spoke enthusiastically about the excitement he felt about the opportunities offered by restructuring. It's probably fair to say that his enthusiasm didn't set the rest of the room on fire.

Paul Lorber for the Lib Dems wanted more information about the role of the Assistant Chief Executive and suggested that perhaps it would be better to employ a director for one of the other service units instead. He was told that the delayed appointment of the permanent Chief Executive would go ahead in May and that the new structure, after consultation, would  help the appointment. Lorber also asked if the new structure at office level with fewer departments would mean a reduction in the size of the Executive with their parallel responsibilities. That has happened in Hounslow but not elsewhere.

Christine Gilbert asked for suggestions on alternative names for the new departments which would sum up their functions concisely.  Mary Arnold suggested that Economic Growth and Employment might better reflect the developing role of Regeneration and Major Projects.

The recommendations in Christine Gilbert's report were accepted subject to consultation on some aspects.