Butt to be rebuffed by Labour Group on Monday?

The Brrent Council Labour Group on Monday will be discussing proposals for the Labour leader (and thus at present the Council leader)  and Cabinet to be elected on a basis other than an automatic annual election.

Muhammed Butt after the May elections said that a four year cycle would end the problem of him having to 'look over his shoulder' all the time.

Brent Central Labour Party recently passed the following motion unopposed:

Brent Central CLP believes that because of the benefits in terms of accountability the Leader of the Labour Group and the Cabinet should remain as annually elected positions.

The potential loss of democratic accountability and the loss of ability to exercise some power on an annual basis has been too much for some councillors although there had been talk of introducing some compromise process which would require a certain number of signatories to trigger an election.

Meanwhile disquiet is mounting over the reputational damage the Council and Labour Party is suffering due to the Cabinet's failure to grasp the nettle of the current scandal regarding the Human Resources Department and the personal, business and career relationships between senior council officers.

There has been one Cabinet resignation recently with Cllr Perrin unwilling to explain the reasons for his resignation beyond the usual 'personal reasons' statement.  It would be to his credit if he had taken a principled stand on the Cavani-Corporate Management Team issue and had opposed the decision to spend council tax payers' money on an appeal over the Employment Tribunal's Judgment.

James Powney's concerns expressed on his blog may be dismissed by some as sour grapes from a member of the deposed Ann John team but his concerns are shared by Labour Party members on the Brent Trades Union Council and members of the Brent Labour Representatation Committee who were never Johnites.

After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?

Amnesty has sent the following invitation which will be of interest to readers involved in the debate over the Tricycle Theatre's refusal of Israeli Government funding (via the Embassy) and the subsequent events.

Do artists and arts organisations have the right to say ‘no’ when governments with negative human rights records try to co-opt culture in the service of their public relations strategies? 

Please join the discussion – After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?
In August 2014, during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Tricycle Theatre asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to forego Israeli embassy funding. The festival refused, walked away from the Tricycle, and briefed the press that the theatre was boycotting a Jewish festival. The theatre came under sustained attack: campaigns to de-fund the theatre, denunciations by liberal newspaper columnists, even intervention by the Secretary of State for Culture himself.

Do we have to accept that the kind of backlash the Tricycle experienced is inevitable as far as funding by a powerful state is concerned, and make sure we never follow where this theatre led?
Panel chair: Kamila Shamsie, novelist.

Speakers: April De Angelis and Tanika Gupta playwrights, Antony Lerman writer & commentator, and Ofer Neiman of the Israeli group Boycott from Within.

Panel discussion. Free entry, but reservation is recommended.
There will be a drinks reception afterwards.
When: Tuesday 7th October, 19:00 – 21:00. Doors open 18:30
Where: Amnesty International UK Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London. EC2A 3EA.

James Powney comments on 'tragic situation' regarding Brent Council bullying allegations

Former Brent Labour councillor James Powney has posted two interesting articles on the current controversies in Brent regarding the Human Resources Department and the Employment Tribunal findings of Racial discrmination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

Yesterday he wrote:

Following an Employment Tribunal that found Brent Council had tolerated racist bullying, there has rightly been a lot of disquiet.  The concerns are highly unlikely to be met by any internal review into the issue, as such a review is far to close to the people alleged to be involved to have any credibility.

What saddens me most about this is that Brent has over many years made real efforts to tackle equality issues, and this looks like an organisation losing those hard fought gains through neglect and perhaps something worse.

Commenting that the Council had come through a rigorous review over the libraries case he went on:

Since then I get an impression of decline.  A lot of this follows on from the removal of Gareth Daniel as Chief Executive.  There has never been any public explanation of why this was done, but I suspect part of it was because Gareth had objected vigorously to a particular councillor bullying staff.  The councillor bore him a grudge as a result and persued a vendetta against him.

Once you start allowing this kind of thing without objection, you begin to create a culture where it is acceptable, and people cease even to object to bullying and simply keep their heads down.  That is a tragic situation not just for the victims but also the organisation as a whole.

I agree that the root of much of the current situation goes back to the removal of Gareth Daniel and deals that were done at the time. The leaking of email communications between Gareth Daniel and Muhammed Butt, to the local press, the suspension of Clive Heaphy for gross misconduct (not financial) and then the settlement with him, the initial stand of three Corporate Management Team members in support of Daniel and the rapid appointment of Christine Gilbert are all part of the scenario.

James Powney today discusses some of the wider issues involved LINK:

I mentioned some of the failings of Brent's human resources yesterday.  Understandably there has been a lot of focus on accusations of racism and bulling, but I think the Human Resources function at Brent Council has a number of problems that need examination by rather more rigorous examiners than the "internal review" apparently set up.  The questions I have in mind are:

1) The obvious concerns about issues to do with bullying, intimidation and possible misuse of funds.
2) The continued appointment of an "interim" Chief Executive whose term appears to be set to extend for more than two years.  During this time other London Boroughs (eg Barnet) have seen seen Chief Executives go and be replaced.  Lambeth Council has advertised recently.  Why is Brent unable to perform this basic function?
3) The rising use of interim staff, which is an enormous cost to the taxpayer, and whether this reflects an underlying weakness in the structure of the organisation.
4) Whether anyone is getting any benefit from the One Oracle project.  One of the main aims of this was supposed to be the improvement in human resources information, which should lead to genuine efficiency savings as well as potentially improving the Council in terms of diversity and so on.

I am sure that these concerns are shared by many Labour councillors as well as local Labour Party members.

The bullet has to be bitten.

Breeding at the top of Brent Council

The tangle of previous employment, business and personal relationships among the top management of Brent Council is rapidly becoming a talking point in the Civic Centre.

The case of Cara Davani, Head of Human Resources and Andy Potts, Principal Employment and Education Lawyer in the Legal and Procurement Department is particularly colourful.  Fiona Ledden heads up Legal and Procurement.

Cara Davani has recently announced that Andy Potts has become a partner in Kebulak her dog breeding business. LINK

Terrier World LINK congratulated the breeders by posting a picture of their twins who were born in June. (scxroll down)

The name of one of the twins is purely coincidental. (I hope)