Muhammed Butt accused of tricking Labour councillors on Scrutiny

James Powney, ex Brent Labour councillor, has returned to the matter of the changes in Scrutiny voted through by the Full Council on June 4th with no comments or questions from Labour backbenchers.

Here is an extract from his hard-hitting posting about the Labour Group meeting LINK:

Neither Cllr Butt nor anyone else chose to mention the drastic changes to the Council Constitution which he at least must have known about.

Why therefore did the entire Labour Group simply nod them through?  I asked a councillor this, and was told that no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes and therefore they did not really know what they were voting on.  If true, that statement is a fairly damning comment on the thoroughness with which councillors prepare for meetings.  When the Tories pointed out the content of the rule changes, the inevitable partisan instincts kicked in and the Labour councillors all voted for them.

Had I been there I would have argued for deferral on the grounds that most of the councillors didn't understand what they were being asked to vote for because parts (eg describing scrutiny arrangements) are just obscure, and parts have sersious implicationms which new councillors simply won't understand until they are given some sort of grounding in Council governance.

Cllr Butt has effectively tricked his colleagues.  I hope they return to the issue at a later date, when they have had time to think about it.

The claim that 'no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes' is interesting. The day before the Full Council I emailed a selection of councillors from all parties with the following message:

Dear Councillor,

First of all congratulations on your election as a Councillor for 2014-18.  With a Council returned with a large majority it is important that there is effective scrutiny in place with backbenchers playing a full part. Effective scrutiny protects against bad decision making and also protects against the damage to the Council's reputation that could be caused by poor decision making.

There has been extensive coverage on Wembley Matters of the proposed changes tabled for Wednesday which have not had full discussion, tabled as they are just two weeks after the election and with many new councillors elected.

Effective scrutiny is a matter for all political parties on the Council and I suggest that you read the pieces below and consider referring back the proposals to allow for the provision of more details and to allow for proper discussion.

Martin Francis

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-calls-for-councillors-to-give.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-blasts-scrutiny-proposals.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-scrutiny-proposals-elaborated.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/scrutinising-brents-scrutiny-proposals.html

The only councillor who really questioned the changes and pointed out the issues was John Warren, leader of the Brondesbury Park Conservative Group.

I understand that disquiet is now developing in the Labour Group with newly elected councillors complaining about the lack of discussion beforehand. A source suggests that there is a possibility of a review although there may be some constitutional impediment to the reversal of a policy recently adopted by Full Council.

COPLAND IS GETTING GOVE’S ‘REVERSE -TROJAN -HORSE’ TREATMENT

-->

Guest blog by Will Shaw

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, the bizarre events surrounding the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ schools should have finally made clear that Ofsted exists to give the government the inspection reports it requires to support whatever its  schools strategy happens to be at any particular time. If the inspectors don’t come up with the right report they can be sent back into schools until they do. This is not usually necessary as the inspectors know what is expected of them and they dutifully supply it. Their lack of integrity or principled independence of thought can be measured by their deafening silence in objecting to this role over the years  and the extreme rarity of any individual resignations.

Ofsted inspections are a key weapon in the government’s overriding aim of ultimately turning  all (state) schools into centrally-run academies and  taking them out of local democratic accountability.  Once Ofsted supplies the government with the ‘appropriate’ inspection report on a school, the next stage is special measures, the imposition from outside of a non-accountable IEB  and forced academisation. This is the stage Copland has been at since last September. 

Obviously, this stage in the process has to appear  to be both necessary and beneficial and it’s Ofsted again which is used to show how much schools like Copland  improve as a result of the government’s wise policies. At Copland, if the inspectors are to be believed, the beneficial results of government policy were almost instantaneous. Their report after last November’s visit spoke of  the school having ‘turned a corner’ and ‘students making better progress’. It continued ‘ teaching …..attendance and punctuality are improving’, ‘students are keen to learn’, ‘ there has been a sea-change in the pace of improvement’, ‘the interim headteacher and associate headteacher and very strong governance of the IEB are driving this change well’ and so on; and all this after only 6 weeks! The nature of the narrative had been set. 

March 2014’s Copland report took the hagiography to the next level:  ‘… the  headteacher of St Paul’s Way is an astute Chair of the Interim Executive Board….. IEB members are asking the right questions about the school’s performance.. balanced in the rigour of challenge and in the quality of their support. Senior leaders are ‘stepping up to the plate’ more …. having greater impact on the work of the school ……... responding well to the high level of challenge being laid down by school leaders and the IEB... ……more accurate understanding of students’ needs  ……..higher expectations for students……  behaviour is much improved and the school is a more respectful place…… zero tolerance to poor behaviour … ….. an attitude of respect between and among students and staff……more confident and articulate learners. …….a richer quality of teaching…..teaching is better… lessons are more structured’. Clearly carried away with the spirit of the thing, the reporting inspector at one point came over all Mills and Boon and, revealing  a bureaucrat’s tin ear for the speech patterns of 21^st century London youth,   wrote this:

 ‘One student, capturing the views of many, said, ‘We can see hope now.’ This new-found optimism is palpable’.  

 (I like to imagine the inspector considering whether to  attribute the final 6 words to this ‘student’ as well, but wisely deciding that this might be pushing it a bit). 

It’s difficult not to laugh (if only at the writers’ belief that they could get away with this tosh) but many teachers and pupils have worked very hard at Copland this year and it’s a pity that any truth which these Ofsted reports might contain is tarnished by the relentless gung-ho bollocks  of the rest of it. But then, establishing  the truth is not at all what these inspections are about. How could they be when 2 inspectors come in for a day and a half and watch 10 or 15 minutes of a few lessons?  No, as in Birmingham their function is to provide bogus supporting evidence for actions already decided on. In the case of Copland, we are being provided with the  narrative of the ‘saving’ of a school by Gove, forced academisation, ‘tough’ but necessary action, (60 staff and half the curriculum axed), and finally the salvation that is The Ark Rescue.  

It’s a satisfying narrative  so far and it will be interesting to see how far the Ofsted inspectors think they can push it when the report on their imminent final visit comes out in a few weeks time.  As the purpose of the report is pre-determined and as the inspectors know what is expected of them (and  also know that their continuing employment depends on their coming up with the goods), the report  might as well have been written last September. If it was, I hope they don’t change anything if they , by chance, should come across this blog. And if they’re looking for further fictional inspiration, what better place than in the sort of book that, if he’d ever read it, Michael Gove would surely have banned, if only for the fact that it isn’t even really a decent, proper, stout English novel but rather some thin, poncey, foreign-sounding thing called a ‘novella’: Animal Farm.

“It has become usual in Wembley to give Mr Gove, Michael Pavey, the IEB, the Interim Headteacher and the Associate Headteacher  the credit for every successful achievement and every stroke of good fortune at the school. You will often hear one pupil remark to another, “Under the guidance of our Senior Leadership Team  I have progressed  five levels in six months” or two teachers, enjoying a drink at the staffroom water-cooler, will exclaim, “thanks to the leadership of Headteacher  Marshall and  Associate Headteacher John, how excellent this water tastes!”...” (With apologies to  George Orwell).

The next Copland Ofsted visit is ‘imminent’  and the inspector’s report will be published in a few week’s time. But please remember, and thanks to Martin, you read it here first.

Birmingham affair reinforces need for accountability through LAs

Today's  report on Birmingham schools has revealed many contradictions but the one that strikes me most is that some of the most serious allegations are about an academy school which of course is allowed to ignore the national curriculum and exercise its own 'freedom from local authority control'.

Ignoring that Gove is to require all schools to promote 'British values' that could easily become, given Gove's record on history become 'Gove values' or 'Daily Mail' values. Poor kids, but not far away from some of Katharine Birbalsingh's comments about what will be promoted at her Micheala Free School.

I welcome then the calm and balanced comment from Christine Blower, General Secretary of the NUT:

From an unsigned and undated letter has grown this so-called ‘Trojan Horse’ affair. 

The highly inflammatory deployment of an anti-terrorism chief to head up the inquiry, the unprecedented and clearly political inspection of 21 schools by Ofsted, and the public squabble between Theresa May and Michael Gove has not been positive for Birmingham schools and the children they educate. 

There seems to be a redefinition of ‘extremism’ from the Secretary of State for Education, and as yet lots of speculation and not a little hyperbole.
What all this does show is that if schools sever their connection with a local authority, the levers to monitor or effect change available at local level are lost. 

What is clearly needed is local authorities with powers to monitor and support schools, clear national agreement on the importance of Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE) and the need to promote community cohesion and the aim to create schools in which individuals feel at ease with themselves and are respectful of difference. Knee jerk reactions from government on the basis of personal predilections are not what is required. 

Any issues which arise in a school should be capable of discussion and resolution at a local level and be addressed speedily and proportionately.
The charge of Islamophobia will stick to this affair unless the schools and their wider communities are seen to be engaged in the solution rather than castigated as being the problem.

Natalie Bennett: 'We are at a big change, a leap, in politics'

Natalie Bennett speaking at the Ecosocialism: Fracking, Climate and Revoution conference on Saturday whcih was organised by Socialist Resistance and Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century.

 

A particular strong speech was made by Fiona Brookes of the Campaign Against Climate Change

Unusual activity in Fryent Country Park disused tennis courts

Investigating unusual Sunday morning activity in the disused tennis courts behind my house this morning, I found UK based Punjabi singer Kaz Khan and crew getting ready to film their latest YouTube video.

kazkhan.co.uk

Chalkhill BMX track ready for use

The cycle facilities at Chalkhill Open Space (Barnhill Road/St David’s Close) are now complete and ready for use by the local community. The facilities provided include a BMX track, a family cycle trail around the perimeter of the open space and a scooter track. More information on the facilities can be found at this webpage: LINK

A few things remain outstanding such as moving the football goalposts away from the cycle trail and time for the grass seed to establish but these do not diminish the availability of the cycle facilities.

The official launch of the facility is likely to be June 25th but children were already enjoying the BMX track when I came by on Thursday evening.

A great addition to the facilities on Chalkhill thanks to Brent Council's Sports and Parks Department.

Kensal Rise Library application a baptism of fire for the new Planning Committee

The controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library development appears to be scheduled for the new Planning Committee on June 17th, despite the police not having yet reported on their investigation of fraudulent emails submitted on the previous application.

Planning officers are recommending that the committee grant consent 'subject to legal agreement'. What this means will become clearer when their full report is published a week before the meeting.

The new Planning Committee, which is supposed to operate independently of the Council and is not whipped, is chaired by newly elected Barnhill councillor, Sarah Marquis who is a lawyer.

This is the composition of the Committee which consists of 7 Labour and one Conservative councillor:

Sarah Marquis, Amer Agha, Shafique Choudhary, Lia Colacicco, Dan Filson, Orleen Hylton, Suresh Kansagra and Arshad Mahmood.

One issue that immediately strikes me is that the Standing Orders for the Committee LINK, approved as part of the constitutional changes adoped at Full Council, is whether a hearing on June 17th gives enough time for the training of new councillors on the Planning Committee that is now required. A good grounding would seem to be required in such a controversial and complex case.

The Declarations of Interest for new councillors have yet to be posted LINK

The full list of comments on the  planning application can be seen on the planning portal LINK

Meanwhile here are some of the comments which will give readers an idea of the issues involved.

-->

Support: I despair that this historic library, opened by Mark Twain, funded by public subscription; with help from Andrew Carnegie, fought for by so many in the community, and now designated a community asset, is to be carved up into a residential development for private profit, with token space set aside for its original use. If the choice is between nothing and something, then of course I support the Planning Application 14/0846 and FKRL as tenants of the space. But the ethics of the closure remain far from clear to me.

Support: Support for planning application 14/0846 I give my support re Planning Application 14/0846: 1. For D1 community library and space 2. For FKRL to be tenants of the space in the belief that this is the best practical way to use the Kensal Rise library building as a community asset. I hope the planning committee has more relevant information than me, and can better judge these issues: * Is a community library a practical, sustainable activity in the space envisaged? * Would the community get sufficient benefit from a library in the space envisaged to respect the "asset of community value" status? * Does the committee believe that the community could get better value from the building (that was funded by public subscription) in another way; i.e. that it should it reject the planning application or defer a decision until after the end of May when further funding options can be discussed? I await the decision and your reasons with interest

Objection: I object to the planning application 14/0846: 1) The application conflicts with the building's Asset of Community Value ("ACV") listing: The whole building is listed as an ACV. The applicant's/develper's plan for flats occupying almost the entire space within the building (less about 185sqm on the ground floor) conflicts with the requirement of the building's ACV listing for future non-ancillary community use. Were the applicant to succeed, most of the building's potential use as a future community facility would be lost to us forever, and in its place we would have the applicant's provision of an ancillary "D1 community space"; this contravenes the ACV requirement that future use of the building for the community be non-ancillary. 2) The impact on local employment and skills: The applicant's plan will damage the employment prospects of local people. In converting almost the whole building to residential use, the applicant is denying the future use of that space to local companies and organisations which could offer the learning of diverse skills not only to those they employ but those who would use their services; in contrast, the small space offered by the applicant cannot offer the same sustainable and diverse business, education, skills and employment opportunities to local people - and such a loss always affects poorer people most. I note that the Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) is the developer's "preferred bidder" for the space, however its model for financial sustainability is weak because it relies almost exclusively on volunteer support - this is because there is little space for it to generate revenue to run a library in the D1 space offered by the developer in this application. 3) Not much more D1 space than in developer's first rejected application on the building in August 2013: The D1 space offered now is little more than what was offered in the developer's first planning application when it was rejected by the planning officers on the grounds of insufficient D1 space. At that time, the developer offered D1 space partly in a basement and partly on the ground floor; as a percentage of total floor space available, the D1 space offered now isn't much more than what was offered then - in fact it's probably less because there is now less basement space in the developer's current application. Therefore, if the planning officers rejected the first application after having concluded that it conceded insufficient D1 space, then it only makes sense for the sake of consistency to reject the current application as well. 4) The police's current fraud investigation potentially exposes planning officers and committee to civil proceedings against them: Has the council considered the legal consequences to it of assigning residential status to any part of the building - and therefore immediately enriching the applicant - while there is an on-going police investigation into email and identity fraud around the applicant's support for his first application in August 2013? While the financial implications of assigning residential status to a currently D1-only building are not a matter for the planning officers and committee, the consequences of doing so while an investigation, which could possibly result in criminal charges, might be. 5) The D1 space is unattractive, small, and will not generate a sustained level of interest from the community because the space is too limited in what it can offer; it is essentially a narrow corridor separating two relatively small rooms - which will be small once essential public facilites such as toilets, staff room, and circulation are factored in. The proposed entrance to the D1 area is in a chimney flue, leaving the better and larger entrance for the few flat owners.

Support: This supporting comment is being submitted on behalf of the Kensal Triangle Residents Association. While,like everyone else, we deeply regret that the whole building is not to be saved for community use, as it was originally gifted to the local community, we consider that the FKRL who have worked tirelessly for the last four years have arrived at the best outcome which still retains a library on the site. We wish for the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to be the tenants of the space and to run the Library. Commenting on purely physical details, we agree with many others that the proposed entrance (through the existing chimney flue) creates a cramped space with poor flow, which will not help with optimisation of the space available: surely some way can be found of creating secure entrances to the flats and the Library through the existing main door.

Support: Time to Win the Peace? We have been involved in campaigns for Kensal Rise Library library since 1988, when the people occupied the building. Now is the turning point. Do we support the developer¿s planning application with the proviso that there be a rent-free space for community use on the ground floor whose preferred tenants are the Friends of Kensal Rise Library? For us the answer is a ¿Yes¿. We know and trust the Friends of Kensal Rise Library, who have fought so hard to save this building and who kept the Pop-up Library running in all weathers, a hard and unglamorous task. Thanks to their tireless negotiations with the developer and All Souls, the space offered has been increased to around two-thirds of the original space the library took up. No war ever achieves all its objectives. Ideally we would all like to keep the whole building for community use. But a moral victory is useless if there is no library at the end of it. The Friends and Trustees of Kensal Rise Library have taken the very difficult decision to support the planning application. After years of saying 'No' to an Oxford College, a Council and a developer, it is hard to say ¿Yes¿. But what were we fighting for? A library. Not an embattled plastic tent, brilliant as it was, but a warm, dry space where books, company and computers are free. A space where parents can bring young children, where older school children can do their home-work. The end-game was always a peace, not a war. My husband, the writer Nicholas Rankin, and I believe it is time to win the peace. It is an act of faith. But every library is an act of faith that when people work together, good things can happen that are not just about profit or advantage. We want Kensal Rise to have a real library back and we think the best chance of it now is to support the planning application.

PLEASE NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS ILL-TEMPERED ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH AROUSED STRONG FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES, I WILL ONLY PUBLISH COMMENTS WHICH INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE COMMENTER.

Gladstone Free School opening delayed until September 2015

Paul Phillips, Principal Designate, has issued the following statement on Gladstone Free School, which was due to open in the Dollis Hill area in September 2014.


Gladstone School, the new Free School approved to open in NW2/NW10, is today announcing that it has been unable to agree terms on permanent premises in time for a September 2014 opening, and as a result is forced to delay its opening until September 2015.

The decision follows a recent policy shift by the Department for Education (DfE) that no Free School can be allowed to open until a permanent site has been identified and secured. The Education Funding Agency (EFA), the government agency responsible for Free School premises, has been in discussions on several proposed permanent sites but none has proved suitable for the school.

Announcing the news today Principal Designate Paul Phillips said, “At this late stage it is highly unlikely that permanent premises will be found to permit all necessary contractual negotiations to be finalised in time for a September 2014 opening. In the light of this the school has no option but to postpone its opening for a year. We know of many other Free Schools in London suddenly forced to defer for the same reason. As a parent-led group we are profoundly aware of the distress this decision will cause to parents and carers of year 6 children who had put their faith in the Gladstone School vision.”

The school had previously advised parents of the possibility of deferral soon after it heard of the DfE's policy change in early March. Several parents wrote to their MPs and to the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove to express their concerns.

Gladstone School will now open in September 2015, with the continued support of the DfE. Mary Pooley, Deputy Director of the Free Schools Group at the Department for Education said, “We have been delighted to work with Groups, such as Gladstone School, which share our vision to provide more children with the opportunity for an excellent education. It is very disappointing for us all that difficulties in securing a site will delay the opening of Gladstone School for a year. We will continue working to secure a site, and extend our full support to the school for a successful opening in September 2015.”

Chair of Governors and founder parent Maria Evans said, “This is heart-breaking news for us all, but there is still a vital job to do. The hundreds of Brent parents who have supported us over the last two years, and welcomed our ambitious and innovative vision, need the certainty that this school will open. We will be working in close consultation with Brent Council and the Education Funding Agency to secure the ideal site ahead of the admissions process for September 2015 entry.”

Earth 2064: Ravaged Disaster or Eco Dream World?

Alperton downgraded after first post-academisation Ofsted inspection

Alperton Community School which received an Outstanding grade in its previous Ofsted Inspection has been downgraded to Requiring Improvement in the latest inspection, which is the first since it converted to academy status in September 2012. The full report is available HERE

The Report states the school requires improvement because:
 

·       Students’ achievement is below expectations in a number of subjects, including English.

·       Not enough teaching is good or outstanding, especially in English.

·       Teachers do not set challenging work in all subjects, particularly for the most able students.

·       Students do not do enough extended writing in all subjects.

·       Teachers’ marking does not always help students to do better. Students sometimes do not respond to teachers’ feedback and this restricts how well their work improves.

·       Teachers sometimes fail to check if students understand the work taught during lessons, which hinders their progres

·      The school’s leaders do not compare what they know about students’ progress between Years 7 to 11 with national expectations in all subjects.

·      Some subject leaders do not have the skills to improve the quality of teaching and students’ achievement quickly enough in their subjects.

·      Senior leaders do not evaluate aspects of the school’s performance, such as the impact of teaching on students’ achievement, precisely enough.

·      The sixth form requires improvement because students’ results vary too much between subjects.

 However Ofsted did identify the following strengths:

·      Weaknesses in teaching and staff under- performance are being effectively attended to by the newly appointed headteacher.

·      Students’ behaviour is good in and out of lessons. Students are safe.

·      Attendance levels are higher than average.

·      The governing body challenges the school’s leaders and holds them to account for students’ achievement.

·      Students achieve well in mathematics and science.

·      Lower ability students, and those who speak English as an additional language, achieve well.

  

• 
  
   
  

Brent Labour backbenchers vote to reduce their own powers and Tories split

 

It was a sad day for democracy at the Brent Council AGM yesterday when not one of the 56 Labour councillors questioned the constitutional changes that will see the level of scrutiny in the Council reduced and limitations on questioning of Cabinet members by backbenchers and the opposition.

At the same time the opposition was weakened by a split in the Conservatives which saw them form an Official Group of three councillors and the 'Brondesbury Park Group' of three.

Cllr John Warren (Brondesbury Park Conservative) opposed the constitutional changes urging Labour backbenchers to 'look at your rights and how they are being lost' pointing to reduced scrutiny, restrictions on questions, removal of 'Key issues' debates, removal of rights to requisition meetings and the guillotine on Council meetings reducing them by 30 minutes.

Dr Helen Carr, (Liberal Democrat, Mapesbury) in her first intervention as a lone Liberal Democrat, said that she did not doubt Muhammed Butt's integrity, but had concerns about the constitutional changes and potential corruption. She appeared to nod in agreement when he reassured her that all was well and all councillors adhered to the highest of standards.

Butt's defence of the changes appeared to be based on their election mandate: 'The people of Brent have spoken'. He argued that the changes would increase participation pointing to the new right of individuals and community organisations to address meetings of the Council. He said that headteachers and doctors would be involved in the new Scrutiny Committee but failed to make a case for the reduction in the overall number of scrutiny committees and restrictions on questions.

All the Labour councillors voted for the changes, Brondesbury Park Conservatives voted against, and the Official Conservatives abstained.

Fryent Way Traveller encampment highlights need for Traveller sites

Rumours circulated yesterday about Travellers moving on to Fryent Country Park. When this picture was taken yesterday there were only a handful of caravans there in the meadow adjacent to the Fryent Way car park.  This meadow is the one used for fun fairs and was the venue for Brent Countryside Day.

There is an official Travellers' site in Brent at Lynton Close in Neasden with space for about 30 caravans but I am unsure whether there are any vacant lots.  Normally a Council officer would visit the unauthorised site and offer accommodation on the official site if it is available.

The Lynton Close site was the scene of demonstrations against evictions in 2008. LINK

The case highlights the change in the law which removed national targets and guidelines for the provision of sites and instead, under the Localism Act, left it up to local authorities to decide their provision.

More information from Shelter LINK

Powney calls for councillors to give themselves time to discuss Scrutiny proposals - and not accept a fait accompli

It is good to see James Powney LINK responding to the 'clarification' of Scrutiny proposals which I published from a source very close to Brent Labour earlier LINK

Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:

If Martin's source is knowledgeable, I wonder whether these are last minute changes to mitigate the apparent intention of removing the operations of the Council from effective scrutiny.  It all seems a very hole-in-the-corner way of doing things.

He says that the requirement that questions to Cabinet members at Full Council be submitted in advance, and without follow-up questions allowed,  will mean that officers will write the answers and they will be read out by the lead members'

He goes on:

All this strikes me as a far cry from how things should be done.  I have suggested that there are three objectives Scrutiny should aim at.  The Welsh National Audit Office has recently gone through a more elaborate analysis.  What the balance between is is an area where I can imagine lots of different points of view, but it is essentially a matter for political value judgements, not simply a technical issue.  Therefore, it should be the subject of a proper debate and decision by councillors, not simply presented to them as a fait accompli within a fortnight of election.

The elected members of the Council should give themselves time to discuss how they want Scrutiny to function, and what they decide should be laid out clearly, not anonymously communicated to Martin Francis. 

I agree completely that a proper report, detailing the proposals and setting out how lay committee members would be recruited is essential for proper consideration of the Scrutiny proposals. Far reaching Scrutiny proposals approved without proper scrutiny would open the Council up to ridicule.

I hope backbench Labour  councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.

If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.

If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited:  anne.reid@brent.gov.uk

Sulivan Primary closure put on hold

Stephen Cowan, the incoming Labour leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, has announced that the closure of Sulivan Primary School has been put on hold pending the decision of the new adminstration. LINK

Sulivan staff and parents launched a campaign against the former Tory adminstration's plans to close the school and to give the land to Fulham Boys' Free School. The Sulivan pupils were to be transferred to another primary schooll which was on the road to academisation.

The new Council's plans for the building of more  afforadble housing is expected to increase demand for school places in the area.

The news is very welcome, not least for the preservation of the unique outdoor space at Sulivan, the loss of which would have been an act of educational and environmental vandalism.

Congratulations once again to the Sulivan campaigners for their tenacity.

Robust local press in Brent more important than ever

Hannah Bewley, Brent reporter for the Willesden and Wembley Observer, has filed her last reports fro that paper. During her time at the paper, which is an off-shoot of the Harrow Observer, despite having little space she published some great investigative journalism.  The paper was particularly vociferous in its support of the campaign against Brent library closures.

Her departure reflects a reduction in editorial staff of the Trinity South group and the closure of some titles. The WWO, expensive at 90p where sold, is likely to have fewer Brent stories in the future which is a pity.

Meanwhile the pressure which is exerted on the local press is evident in the adjudication published in last week's Brent and Kilburn Times.  The Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint by former Labour councillor Jim Moher against Lorraine King, the BKT news editor but rejected two further complaints by him about accuracy and the opportunity to reply to stories.

The complaint that was upheld was about a comment that she made on Facebook about an unnamed individual Lorraine identified as a 'failed wannabe MP'. and in which she stated ''I plan to make his life a misery as much as possible' and  'Lord God forgive me if I bump into him before I get back to work, you will be visiting me in Holloway'.  The BKT argued that the comment was made on a personal Facebook account that could only be seen by 'friends'.  The comment had been made after she received an email from Moher which said:

Here you are again this week giving extensive coverage to the most scurrilous and unfounded attacks

and concluded:

PS By the way it was me who sorted your permit problem.

At the time that Moher's email, one of a series, was sent Lorraine King was on compassionate leave after the death of her mother. The PS  refers to a parking permit that Ms King needed for grieving relatives.  In the circumstances she found the email upsetting which led to the Facebook comments.

Although the Commission's remit does not cover social media content they ruled that as the comment related to the news editor's contact with Moher in her professional role, and could be viewed by individuals who she came into contact in that role, it could be considered under Clause 4 of the Code which states:

Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

The Commission considered that the implied threat of violence was not intended to be taken seriously but concluded:

...it had no hesitation in finding that this constituted intimidation withint the meaning of Clause 4, and a serious failure to uphold the highest professional standards required by the code.

The Huffington Post in covering this story said it was the first time the PCC, which is shortly to be ablosihed and replaced by several bodies, had decided it could rule on what journalsits said on 'private' social media accounts LINK:

Mike Jempson, Vice-chair of NUJ Ethics Council, told HuffPost UK it was an issue that the union had debated on several occasions. "Difficulties have arisen because some employers encourage reporters to express their opinions on blogs and to engage with their publics via social media, yet as reporters they are expected to retain a degree of impartiality," he said.

“Journalists share the right to freedom of expression with all members of the public, and should not feel constrained in how they express themselves. Indeed many journalists also write fiction, drama and poetry which is not a matter for the PCC."

While stressing it was important the journalists themselves made the distinction between personal and professional contributions on social media, it would be "a pity, and improper, if the PCC and its successor IPSO were to determine that all material by journalists published on non-commercial outlets that operate their own agreed contributors’ codes should be subject to the Editor’s Code.”

Readers will make up their own minds about this but I do hope that the BKT maintains its robust coverage of local issues, which has sometimes inevitably made it unpopular with local councillors. Lorraine King has been an excellent news editor and local press coverage is especially important now that we have a Council with a very large majority. The BKT must continue to be 'on the side of the people'.

Wembley Matters in the past has had its own dealings with Jim and Roth Moher LINK

Powney blasts scrutiny proposals

Former Brent Labour councillor James Powney yesterday blasted the Scrutiny proposals going before the Full Council meeting on Wednesday.  LINK
He describes the proposals as 'ill-advised' and put forward without any disccussion in the Labour Party or meaningful discussion in the Labour Group:

Given the whole point of scrutiny is to make sure that the spending of public money is transparent and above board, the secrecy with which these changes are being treated is particularly ironic. 

He goes on:

...Indeed it might have been specifically designed to do away with meaningful scrutiny altogether. At a time when barriers to corruption in local government are being systematically dismantled, and lower resources put a premium on good quality decision making, this is exactly the opposite of what should be done.

This is strong stuff and for once James Powney and I are in agreement.

New Brent Cabinet must lance this boil

Before the election the Brent Green Party called for an independent investigation into various controversial aspects of the running of Brent Council which had emerged in postings on Wembley Matters.

Brent Council refused to comment on these during the election period but now a new adminstration is in place it is time to launch an independent investigation so that a fresh start can be made which will win the confidence of Brent Council workers and residents.

These are the issues for investigation:

1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll (the allegation has been made that these are tax avoidance schemes)
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments (the allegation has been made that these are on more favourable terms and are less clearly defined than for ordinary Brent Council workers)
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis (the allegation has been made that colleagues who worked together at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council have formed a new group of senior officers at Brent Council. Further that an officer in a personal relationship with another officer had adjudicated on fraud allegations against her)
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department (aside from a current Employment Tribunal case allegations have been made by individuals of bullying and harrassment aimed at moving them out of their jobs)
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution

A further issue now that the election is out of the way is the appointment of a Chief Executive. Christine Gilbert's interim appointment was extended by the Brent Executive on the recommendation of Fiona Ledden until after the election.  The permanent position should now be publicy advertised with a transparent recruitment process.


LINKS: (Also see the comments on these posts)

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/eric-pickles-urged-to-investigate-brent.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/victimisation-bullying-racial-and.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/revisiting-christine-gilberts.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-not-commenting-on-tewari.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/eric-pickles-urged-to-investigate-brent.html

Brent scrutiny proposals elaborated

I have received further details of the way Scrutiny is intended to operate under the new Brent Council arrangements from a reliable source. They seem to go beyond what is actually in the papers going to Full Council on Wednesday.

There will be 8 members of the Scrutiny Committee withs its work programme co-ordinated by a single Chair. The Chair will be empowered to form sub-committees and task groups to examine particular policy areas and developments.

The Chair will be able to invite any member of the Council, apart from the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and who are not in the Cabinet,  and 'notable citizens' outside the Council to sit on the sub-committees and task groups.

The seven other members of the Scrutiny Committee will serve as chairs of the sub-committees and task groups as well as contributing to the main Scrutiny Committee.

The claim is that this will give more members of the Council and the public an opportunity to get involved in scrutiny.

The Scrutiny committees will take place on a monthly basis rather than the present quarterly  meetings and the full committee will meet the week after Cabinet meetings.

I also understand that there are proposals for the creation of deputy cabinet positions so as to involve more of the large Labour group in policy making.

On the face of it this clarification (or is it a revision?), seems to go some way to addressing concerns about the lack of scrutiny in an 'almost one party' Council but  the proposals still look rather vague and the method of choosing committee members unclear. It will be the detail, and the people on the committee/s, that will have to convince the sceptics.

Brent Labour's new cabinet announced

The new Cabinet

A challenge to Cllr Muhammed Butt's leadership by Cllr Neil Nerva was beaten at today's Labour AGM when Butt won 75% of the votes.

Cllr Michael Pavey narrowly beat Cllr Ruth Moher for the Deputy Leadership. Pavey told Labour councillors that he would devote all his energy to supporting Cllr Butt's reforms, freeing the leader to 'lead from the front'. His precise brief in addition to being deputy has not been decided but a source said that he was likely to be a 'more political' deputy.

Cllr James Denselow beat Cllr Aslam Choudry  by three votes for the Stronger Communities portfolio. This will make him responsible for community and voluntary sector engagement, libraries  and crime reduction.

Cllr George Crane stood down from the Executive and Cllr Margaret McLennan will take on regeneration policy, Crane's former portfolio,  as well as housing.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari will take on a new portfolio for Employment and Skills  and newly elected Cllr Keith Perrin will become lead member for the Environment.

Cllr Krupesh Hirani will continue as lead member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing and Cllr Ruth Moher will take over Michael Pavey's position as Lead Member for the renamed Children and Young People portfolio.

The Cabinet will consist of 8 members compared with 10 on the previous Executive.

Cllr Pat Harrison continues as Labour Group chair and Cllr Sandra Kabir replaces Cllr Shafique Choudhary as Labour Chief Whip.

Cllr Kana Naheerathan will be Labour's nomination for Mayor and Cllr Lesley Jones deputy,

The proposal that the Labour leader should only face re-election every four years, instead of annually, will be decided later. It has proved controversial with Cllr Butt  apparently claiming that he cannot keep looking over his shoulder every year.

Chairs of Scrutiny, Planning and other committees will be decided on Monday.

More democracy 'wherever practicable' suggests new Labour councillor

As the Labour Group meets this morning there are signs of some disquiet over the changes in Scrutiny. However, concentrating minds even more in the context of concentrating power, is the proposed amendment to Labour Party Standing Orders which would abolish annual elections. This would leave Muhammed Butt in the leadership position until the next local election,

In a Twitter exchange with former councillor James Powney, newly elected councillor Tom Miller asks, "What stake for backbenchers, one might ask?'

Powney replied that it was open to the Labour Group to defer the decision.

Tom Miller responded, 'One for closed doors I am sure, but I know which way I fall on democracy issues - more of it whenever practicable...'

Let's hope the rest of the Labout Group agree with Cllr Miller today - not just on annual elections but Scrutiny. Perhaps he might even suggest that abolition of the whip would go some way to provide more democracy 'whenever practicable'.

Chalkhill Park planting comes into glorious flower

Just a year after opening Chalkhill Park is looking stunning this week as the plants come into flower. Congratulations to Garth McWilliam and the team.

(Wild flower meadow)

Will changes to Brent's Planning Code address the real issues?

In addition to the constitutional changes already covered on Wembley Matters there are also recommendations for revisions to the Members' Code of Conduct and Licensing and Planning Codes of Practice.

Planning decisions in Brent have been controversial not least because departmentally it comes under the same Director and Lead Member as Regeneration and Growth.  Andy Donald, Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth has expressed the view that belief that the local authority should have the role of smoothing the way for developers.

Fiona Ledden's report states:

The aspect specific to planning identified as benefiting from inclusion in the Code was the position where the Council is the applicant or landowner.

The issue may appear dry and dull but arguably has the most impact on the lives of local people in somewhere like Willesden Green where the Council was giving land to a developer in exchange for the building of a new Cultural Centre and where the Council relieved the developer of any duty to provide affordable housing.

The question is whether the revised code will in any way give residents a voice faced with the Council-Developer combo.

The amendments can be found HERE but I will highlight some of the changes for the benefit of readers so that they can answer the above question for themselves.

Members of the Planning Committee are warned:

If a member does not abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.

The disclosure of 'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new paragraph is inserted:

Members of the Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party politics.

There is something rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the 'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing:

The rules of natural justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made; and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that affects their own interests.

A section of 'Bias and Predetermination' has been added:

Members should not take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take it.

 ...A member taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.

The section on Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary interest to have a right to attend a meeting:

...where a member of the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,

At present many planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The Code is amended:

A member considering using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has to be considered by Committee. 

The key issue of planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered by this paragraph:

Where the council itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee, However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual  responsibility for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning decision.

 Does this sufficiently deal with the wider conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the judge of the Council's own development schemes?

 On the issue of Committee member site visits a paragraph is added:

Members should take care not to show any apparent partiality to people they already know when acknowledging members of the public or applicants that are present. Members attending the site visit should avoid expressing opinions about the application either to another Planning member, or to any person present.

It begins to look like the three wise monkeys would be ideal members of the Planning Committee!

The local press may be interested in this amendment (38) which adds journalists to the list:

Members of the Planning Committee should not speak to members of the public (including applicants, agents and journalists) during a meeting of the Planning Committee or immediately prior to or after the meeting concerned, other than where permitted by this Code of Conduct.

I am sure that a case could be made in terms of freedom to report that journalists are rather more than 'members of the public'.

It is worth including in this report the existing Code in regard to Member and Officer relations which has been an issue in the past:

Any criticism by members of Planning Committee of officers in relation to the handling of any planning matters shall be made in writing to the Strategic Director Regeneration and Growth and not to the officer concerned. No such criticism shall be raised in public.

If any officer feels or suspects that pressure is being exerted upon him or her by any member of the Council in relation to any particular planning matter, he or she shall forthwith notify the matter in writing to the Strategic Director Regeneration and Growth.

A substantial section has been added to the Code requiring Planning Committee members to undergo a course of training on the planning system:

If a member of the Planning Committee fails to participate in compulsory elements of the training this may result in that member being asked to stand down as a member of the Planning Committee,