An ex Brent Council worker, forced out of her job and
silenced by a compromise agreement, has sent me Eric Pickles’ summary of the
Casey
LINK report into Rotherham Council.
She remarked, ‘familiar, isn’t it?’
Of course not everything applies equally to Brent, and
some perhaps not at all, but there are enough similarities to be of concern.
Make up your own mind about which apply.
·
Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the
council
·
There is a pervading culture of bullying,
sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness which has cemented the
council’s failures.
·
Both members and officers lack the confidence to
tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community
cohesion
·
The council is currently incapable of tackling
its weaknesses, without a sustained intervention.
·
The council lacks political leadership.
·
It is directionless and is not clear what kind
of organisation it wants to be, and how it will get there.
·
It is clear that the political leadership of the
council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all
members to properly represent the interests of local people and businesses.
·
Some councillors, have not lived up to the high
standards expected of those in public life or their positions of
responsibility. For example the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence
whistle-blowers.
·
It has created an unhealthy climate where people
fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.
·
Management is ineffective.
·
There is no cohesive senior leadership team and
no permanent chief executive.
·
There is a poorly directed tier of middle
managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and
ability necessary to turn the organisation around.
·
There is a history of poor performance and a
tolerance of failure in Children’s Services.
·
Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and
don’t get translated into change.
The Casey Report finds overall that Rotherham Council failed to Listen, Learn, Challenge and Improve. They found insufficient evidence of clear managerial leadership, not of political leadership to ensure officers were held to account for delivery. Members blamed officers for failure to progress and officers blamed members for lack of leadership.
The Report shows what might have been
achieved by an independent report into Brent Council, rather than the internal
Pavey report. A request for a review, sent by Nan Tewani to Eric Pickles, has
still to receive a response.
LINK
Inspectors saw
regular reports to the Cabinet and Scrutiny committees, but not the effective
challenge we would expect from elected Members. The notion of challenge has
been misunderstood and misinterpreted as bullish questioning. Challenge means
setting aspirational targets, knowing how far to stretch the organisation,
asking searching questions, drilling down into information and data, ensuring
targets are kept to and agreed actions implemented. It also means recognising
organisational inertia and doing something about it; identifying when people
are struggling, finding out why and getting alongside them, overcoming barriers
and working out solutions.P65
One illustration of
this disconnection between vision, plans and practice is the Council’s
equalities plan and single equality scheme. The documents are
clear,aspirational and include a summary of good practice. However, we found
that this was not rooted in the day-to-day experience of staff. We set these
matters out i more detail elsewhere in considering political correctness and
race. The point here is that whilst plans and policies look appropriate,
or even good, they bear little relationship to what inspectors found at the
frontline. (p70)
Inspectors were told
that in Children’s Services only “60-80% of staff are having Performance
Reviews, with HR spot checking more than anything”. Inspectors did not find
this to be at all adequate. We would expect the vast majority of staff, with
few exceptions, to be having performance reviews so they know what is expected
of them and how their work contributes to the delivery of the Council’s
plans. Inspectors concluded that some staff did not understand the Council’s
vision; a number were clearly confused about what was expected of them and this
hampered their performance in terms of day to-day service delivery (p70)
Note: Pavey found that in two ‘non-management’ workshops,
45% and 30% respectively of Brent staff had not had an appraisal in the last 12
months and more than half had not had sight of their team or service plan.
Scrutiny in Brent has been an issue since the incoming
Labour administration reduced it to one Committee in May 2014. It was also an
issue in Rotherham:
However, it is not
clear how effective it has been in holding Cabinet Members and senior officers
to account for their individual performance and decision-making
Inspectors could not find much evidence of how scrutiny had changed practice or
policy making. P75
Where Councillors
have scrutinised other agencies, eg aspects of health, they have been more
effective and robust. However, not enough Members really know how to get
underneath information presented by
officers, and the organisation has not properly resourced and facilitated
effective scrutiny. It was generally acknowledged that the scrutiny team was
small and disconnected from the Senior Leadership Team. P77
Inspectors concluded
that overview and scrutiny had been deliberately weakened and under-valued. The
structures and processes look superficially adequate, but the culture has
been one where challenge and scrutiny were not welcome. P76
There are also findings that relate to the budget process
and planning cuts:
However, Inspectors
found that the overall approach to finance planning was not based on a clear
and political strategic vision. The Improvement Board recognises this and is
working to develop one. In the absence of this vision, the budget process has
been led by finance. All departments were asked to find a quota of savings,
with some protection for frontline services. This approach has delivered the
bottom line, but with serious consequences. For example, some services no
longer have the capacity to function effectively. We were particularly
concerned about the level of funding for central regulatory functions and those
which will drive transformation, like legal services, organisational
development, strategy, and resources to ensure community cohesion. P83
It is in the area of Human Resources that comparing
Rotherham with Brent becomes most telling:
Generally,
inspectors found the Council too willing to take the path of least resistance
rather than ensuring it did the right thing for individuals or the organisation
as a whole. We have concluded that whilst the Council has followed its own
procedures, these have not always ensured that it has taken, and continues to
take, appropriate action against staff potentially guilty of gross misconduct.
P130
Settlements can
leave issues unresolved in the case of grievances. For example, one staff
member was offered severance when she complained of being bullied. There were
counter claims against her by others saying she was a bully. Because the case
was not properly investigated, it is unclear whether the matter was resolved by
the complainant’s departure. Where severance is used instead of disciplinary
action procedures being followed through, it sends the wrong message to the
workforce and managers. It may not be an appropriate use of public funds,
particularly where dismissal could have occurred if due process had been
followed. This was acknowledged by the Council. P132
The above point is particularly interesting in the light
of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case and the different treatment
of a white member of the Corporate Management Team which led to the
finding of racial discrimination as well as victimisation and constructive
dismissal.
Grievance cases were
too frequently dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. In two cases
where this had occurred, Inspectors considered there was clearly some evidence
of poor conduct by managers. In another case, Inspectors noted that the
disciplinary process appeared to have been concluded without seeking evidence
from all third party witnesses.
At times, little
effort appeared to have been put into seriously exploring issues raised through
grievances. For example, a complaint about potential institutionalised racism
was apparently dismissed without investigation on the basis that it was
‘unsuitable for a grievance process’. We make no comment on the merit of this
particular case, except that it should have been properly looked into. P133
Whistle-blowing and the treatment of whistle-blowers was
an issue in Rotherham as it is in Brent:
Inspectors have
concluded that RMBC goes to some lengths to cover up information, and silence
whistle-blowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak
out because they have seen the consequences of doing so for others.
“I’m just worried
about reprisals of a personal nature.” (A councillor)
“We’ve all been made
aware of the (whistle blowing) procedure,but no-one dares ever use it, because
if they did, eventually it would come back to bite them in the backside and
they would be bullied out of the organisation”. (A whistle-blower P134)
Staff in RMBC have
spoken to Inspectors of being afraid to speak out, told to keep
quiet, instructed to
cover up, and of a culture where “if you want to keep your job,
you keep your head
down and your mouth shut.”
A significant number
of people we interviewed were clearly afraid of what might happen to them if
they spoke out.
Inspectors
considered detailed evidence in three specific cases where people who blew the
whistle felt they were marginalised, bullied, harassed and victimised as a result.
In two cases,
whistle-blowers claimed they were deliberately restructured out, one
from the Council and
the other from a provider working closely with the Council
under a contract. In a
third case, following a similar pattern of marginalisation the
person left.
Inspectors recognise that sometimes whistle-blowers may have other agendas and
those who approach inspections can be aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. We
have borne this in mind when reviewing the cases presented to us and have
nevertheless formed a view that in these specific cases there was sufficient
truth in the matters raised to be a cause of public concern.
It is clear from the report that correct paper policies and procedures are not enough. It is what happens day to day, and people's experience of management's handling of the big issues of respectful treatment and equality which is important and that is what has concerned Brent Council staff.
One person at least will be able to see if this report resonates with Brent. Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets, and recently appointed Chief Operating Officer for Brent, was one of the inspection team for the Casey Report.
Barry Gardiner
