Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
Webcast recording of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, just about to begin.
(But Cllr. Tatler has to answer an urgent telephone
call – I wonder what that was about?)
Under my recent guest post, “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet meeting
minutes a work of fiction?”, I added
several “FOR INFORMATION” comments, sharing the texts of email correspondence
I’d had with Council Officers. I was trying to get them to amend the minutes of
the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, so that they show a true and correct record of what happened over the award of the
advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge.
“FOR INFORMATION 4” was an email I’d sent on Friday afternoon to Brent’s
Corporate Director (Law and Governance), setting out the changes I believed the
Council needed to make to item 7 in those minutes. But the people who finally
decide (at least officially) whether the minutes of the previous meeting are a
correct record are the members of the Cabinet, and this is due to happen at
their next meeting, on Monday morning, 17 June, at 10am (or probably 10.01am,
by the time they get to item 3 on their agenda).
In view of that, I sent the following open email to the Council Leader
and all members of his Cabinet at around 11.30am on Saturday 15 June. (I know
it is a weekend, but they are probably all working hard, preparing for Monday’s
meeting!) My email forwarded the one I had sent to Debra Norman (and I had
anonymised the name of the more junior Council Officer in the version below, to
protect his privacy):
FW: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for
item 7, are incorrect.
This is an open email
Dear Councillor Butt and Cabinet members,
I am forwarding the email below, which I sent to
Debra Norman (Corporate Director, Law and Governance) yesterday afternoon, so that
you are aware of the need to amend the published minutes of Cabinet's 28 May
meeting, when you deal with item 3, minutes of the previous meeting, at your
next meeting on Monday morning, 17 June.
I know, from being at the 28 May meeting for this
item myself, and from the webcast of it on the Council's website, that the
minutes document attached to the agenda for your 17 June meeting does not show
a correct record of the proceedings over item 7, the award of the Bobby Moore
Bridge advertising lease.
In my email below, I have set out the changes which
need to be made, based on the evidence in the webcast recording. I hope that
you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.
While writing, I would suggest that the method of
"voting" on decisions at Cabinet meetings also needs to be changed,
as the present 'standard practice'*
can lead to misunderstanding.
Cabinet meetings are the place where the public
should be able to see and hear the borough's big decisions being made. If
nobody speaks about the matters being decided, or expresses their view on the
decision, for or against (particularly when there is more than one option
available), then there is no demonstration of democracy in action.
At the very least, when resolutions are put to
Cabinet for agreement, or otherwise, the voting should be by a show of hands. I
hope that Cabinet will adopt that practice, to avoid any further episodes which
could bring the Council into disrepute. Thank you.
Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
------------------------------
Forwarded message:
Subject: Fwd: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet
meeting, for item 7, are incorrect
To: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk
Dear Ms Norman,
Further to the emails today from *****
***** and yourself, in response to my email this morning (sending you a
copy of the blog article I had written, which has now been published online: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-in-brent-are-cabinet-meeting.html ), I am writing to confirm that I still wish to challenge the accuracy
of item 7 in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.
I have noted the explanations given by Mr *****, but believe that the
main criticisms of those minutes in my article are still valid. In order to try
to resolve this matter, I will set out below the amendments which I believe are
required to make the minutes a correct record.
1. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:
'The Cabinet thanked those involved in the work on this and the
residents who had put their views forward and RESOLVED, having noted the
comments made during the presentation of the petition relating and the
following options presented for consideration in relation to the award of the
contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease:
Option A – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the
existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled
areas.
Option B – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the
underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.
(1) To approve, having taken account of the reasons detailed in
paragraph 3.2.6 of the report, the award of contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge
Advertising Lease on the basis of Option B (namely advertising on the parapet
walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque)
to Quintain Ltd.
(2) To note the minimum guaranteed amount in respect of Option B would
generate additional financial return above the required guarantee over the
four-year contract period compared with Option A.
(3) To note in respect of Option B the tiled mural with plaque in honour
of Bobby Moore would remain on permanent display inside the underpass framed by
the lightboxes.'
Replace that section with:
‘Councillor Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from
Cabinet members. No Cabinet member indicated that they wished to speak.
Councillor Butt then moved the recommendation in the Officer Report, in
relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising
Lease, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of
the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He asked
whether he could take this in agreement from Cabinet members, and although
there was no response from them, he declared that the Recommendation was
agreed.’
2. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:
'Following on from the above decision, Philip Grant sought to raise a
point of order, which the Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council)
advised he was not minded to accept on the basis of Mr Grant already having had
the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. '
Replace that section with:
‘Immediately following that declaration, Philip Grant raised a point of
order. Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) refused to
acknowledge that a point of order had been raised, but Mr Grant continued to
raise it, saying: 'Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single
member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.'
Councillor Butt continued to object to Mr Grant speaking, on the basis
that he had already had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting
the petition. Councillor Neil Nerva tried to intervene, saying: 'Chair. On a
point of order ...', but was ignored by the Council Leader. When Mr Grant
finished trying to get his point of order considered by Councillor Butt, the
Council Leader said: 'Thank you very much. Cabinet has agreed the
recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’
These two proposed changes to the minutes of the meeting for item 7
would remedy the worst of the inaccuracies. If they are made, I would accept
that the minutes would then be a true and correct record, which at present they
are not. I hope that you can agree to make those changes. Thank you. Best
wishes, Philip Grant.
I hope that
Councillor Butt and his Cabinet will agree to correct the minutes, but I won’t
be holding my breath.
Philip Grant
* This is the ‘standard practice’ I was referring to in my open email to
the Council Leader and Cabinet members, as explained to me by a Brent Council Governance
Officer:
‘In terms of the minutes, from my perspective these
set out in full the decision made at the meeting based on the wording of the
recommendations within the accompanying report, which were approved by Cabinet
on the basis of Option B being clearly identified by the Leader as the
substantive recommendation in relation to the award of the contract for the
advertising lease and the remaining recommendations all listed for noting.
These were agreed by Cabinet without anyone indicating they were minded to vote
against, or seek to amend, with the minutes reflecting standard practice
in the way decisions are recorded.’