Brent Labour Councillors must act on racism and bullying tomorrow

Former Brent Council Executive member James Powney returned to the subject of the current race discrimination and bullying scandal at Brent Council on his blog yesterday. LINK

This is what he had to say:

I notice that in a debate on Martin Francis blog some of the commentators appear to be confusing his position and mine.  My original post is here, and Martin has paraphrased it accurately, whilst adding his own view.  Hence the understandable confusion.

My view is that Brent Council had strong rules and procedures before 2012, including appropriate relationships between members and officers.  These were built up over many years since the nadir of the Tory administration in the 1990s, as explained here.  Since 2012, there has been a steady decline in the application of appropriate standards, leading to a situation where accusations of various forms of abuse, including racism and misuse of public money, are flying about.  This is, in my view, the result of the past couple of years where patronage and irrational decision making have increased, scrutiny has declined, and certain individuals appear to have been allowed to believe that they enjoy impunity from accountability.

My view is that it is up to elected councillors to step in and sort this out, whether the abuses are being committed by over mighty officers or whether they are being committed by elected members who are out of control (or indeed whether they are being influenced by people who fit in neither category). Given the composition of Brent Council, that primarily means the Labour Group.

The debate on Martin's blog can be found here. 

It would be a pity if Labour councillors meeting tomorrow as the Labour Group let personal antipathy towards James Powney (as a member of the old regime), myself (as a member of a rival political party or Graham Durham (well, as Graham Durham) get in the way of recognising the need to deal with this issue.

Up to this point the scandal has not hit national media but any risk assessment of the potential damage to the Council and perhaps the Labour Party's reputation would recognise that the matters needs to be dealt with decisively and action taken.

In the last fortnight I have received emails and phone calls from former and current Brent Council workers about working conditions at the Council, some of whom work at a senior level. They have been told they will be disciplined if they approach Councillors directly and those that have left have had gagging clauses imposed as part of the settlement.

I have inadvertently found myself in the position of being their only outlet because of the Council's actions.  Several have wept on the phone as they recall the effect on their health and emotional well-being as well as the impact on their families.

Councillors should recognise that it is their responsibility to ensure that their employees are treated fairly in an atmosphere free from harassment, bullying and fear.

It is as simple as that.

It is not something they can ignore.

We need to follow up today's Independent letter on pressure on pupils with a national campaign

This is the text of the letter signed by educationalists, authors, teachers, parents and grandparents published in the Independent today. I tried to sign when it was on line but was thwarted by technical problems - I fully support it as an ex-teacher and current governor at two Brent schools.

The letter is in line with Green Party Policy and the NUT's Education Manifesto and could form the basis of a national campaign.

As parents and educators we find ourselves increasingly concerned at the pressure that is being placed on our children and young people. We worry about the long term impact that this pressure may have on our children’s emotional health, particularly on the most vulnerable in our society. We are concerned to hear of children crying on their way to school, upset that they will not be able to keep up; of parents worried that their four year olds are ‘falling behind’ or of six year olds scared that they ‘might not get a good job’. And we wonder what has happened to that short period in our lives known as ‘childhood’.

The pressure that is put on schools to achieve results, particularly in the tests that now form such a regular feature of a child’s life, has inevitably led to increased pressure on the children themselves. This is not to blame teachers, or schools. Rather, it is to say that with test results becoming such a high stakes feature of our education system, schools are put in a very difficult position. When test results are the key measure of whether a child’s school is ‘good’ or not, we believe that every child’s entitlement to a broad and balanced education is put at risk. We believe all children have the right to become fully rounded individuals, and that in order to help them achieve this, we must protect their emotional well-being, now and for the future. We believe all children have the right to be treated as individuals, and to be allowed to develop at a pace that is right for them, not to meet a Government target.

We call for all those who are equally concerned to speak out against the direction in which education in England, and in other countries around the world, is moving. We call for governments around the world to take into account children’s emotional well-being when they consider the ‘effectiveness’ of schools and other educational settings.

Posted with Blogsy

IDS's pre-paid cards aimed at creating hostility against the poor and humiliating them

•  

  

  antonynbrit.com

• The Coalition Government are balancing the budget on the backs of the poor
• The Green Party is the only party committed to transforming the economy to make it work for all not just the 1%

 

Work and Pensions Minister Iain Duncan Smith’s announcement on Government plans to introduce payments on pre-paid cards to welfare state claimants has  been denounced as “positively Orwellian” by the Green Party.

 

The party has responded to Iain Duncan Smith’s speech with anger saying that “this move is deliberately aimed at generating  disunity and creating hostility towards the most vulnerable.”

 

Green Party Welfare Spokesperson, Romayne Phoenix said:

The Conservative's  disastrous decision to introduce payments on pre-paid cards for claimants shows how out of touch they are with the realities of life for many people in Britain today. Anyone that is in debt or struggling to earn a living doesn't need reminding to spend their small benefit payments on food for their families. What most people need are better wages and better support. 87% of people claiming state aid are already in work but often in such low paid jobs that leave them  unable to pay their bills and having to look to the state for help. These families deserve support, not retribution and humiliation.

If the Conservative's really want to help people facing problems with gambling and addiction, they should stop promoting the national lottery and stop cutting funding to those vital support services that have been set up specifically to help people in tackling such issues. If the government is really that hung-up on problem gambling, a more socially beneficial approach might be to introduce pre-paid cards for their friends in banking that require them to invest sustainability and ethically rather than speculating away public finances.

The Welfare reforms have so far caused "financial hardship and distress" a committee of MPs found in April.

Greens slam Osborne's benefits freeze

Only the Green Party are committed to transforming the economy so that it works for the common good

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s plans for a two year benefits freeze will once again penalise the most vulnerable in our society, says the Green Party, the only Westminster party committed to transforming the economy so that it works for the common good, not just the 1%.

Reacting to Osborne’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference, in which the Chancellor said a future Conservative government would freeze benefits paid to people of working age for two years, Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader, said:

It is obvious our current economic model, as inexplicably praised by the Chancellor today, has failed. Tackling the deficit by ruthlessly targeting the poor and vulnerable is not what constitutes an economic recovery.

We should acknowledge that we are a wealthy economy that can afford to pay decent benefits to everyone who needs them, as a decent, humane society should. That must be paid for by rich individuals and multinational companies paying their way - something that this government has notably failed to enforce.

Responding to news that a future Conservative government would freeze working-age benefits and make further public spending cuts of £25bn, Molly Scott Cato MEP said: 

Public debt is greater now than when the Tories came to office, demonstrating that public spending and welfare cuts have failed spectacularly in tackling the deficit. The truth is, austerity provides an excuse to punish the poorest in society, which is not only morally indefensible, it is also a false economy. 

Policies like the bedroom tax just push more people into the private rented sector which then costs the public more in housing benefit. Likewise, the increasing levels of poverty and inequality under the Coalition government impact on health and so pile more costs onto the health service. Greens believe in positive alternatives to austerity that would tackle the misery of poverty and address inequality; policies such as a citizens income, rent controls and a massive home insulation programme.

Since the May 22 European elections, the Green Party has announced a string of progressive economic policies, which would deliver real change for the common good. 

The Green Party’s 2015 General Election manifesto will include a Wealth Tax, and plans to deliver a £10 minimum wage for all by 2020, a Living Wage for all immediately, and a People’s Constitutional Convention to deliver meaningful constitutional and electoral reform.

The latest YouGov resultsfor the Sunday Times have the Greens and Liberal Democrats both at 6% in voting intention.

Proposers miffed as WHIF fails to get approval

In the flurry of announcements about new free school approvals from the DfE one school was missing.

The controversial West Hampstead International Free School is the brain child of Dr Claire Craig and was featured on this blog earlier in the year LINK

Today the following notice is on the WHIF website:

We submitted our application to government for a new primary and secondary free school in May 2014. Our petition included 1870 children eligible to attend the school including 719 who could attend in 2015 and 2016.  We had an interview with the Department for Education in July and have since heard that the West Hampstead International School has not been approved for opening in 2015.

We are immensely disappointed and very sorry to have let down our many supporters.

We are awaiting feedback before we decide how to proceed.

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.