Latest on Brent Chief Executive appointment

Following various rumours circulating about the appointment of the new Chief Executive of Brent Council last week I sought clarification from the Brent Council Press Office.  This is their statement:

The (CEO) interview process has not yet taken place therefore no appointment has been made.   The new Chief Executive will be appointed by a panel of elected members later this month and this appointment will be subject to ratification by Full Council on 22 June 2015.  As yet Christine Gilbert has not agreed a leaving date.

I can confirm that Lorraine Langham, Chief Operating Officer, has not applied for the role.

The Council will make a public statement once an appointment has been confirmed.

Parents and politicians support fight against forced academisation of St Andrew and St Francis CofE Primary

 Compiled from a press release from Brent ATL and NUT

Mr Gorsia, a parent, addressing the meeting

Staff at St Andrew and St Francis CofE Primary in Belton Rd, Willesden, Brent took their fifth day of strike action  on Thursday in protest at their school being forced to become an academy. The theme on the picket line was ‘Democracy denied: IEB refuses parents’ ballot’. After the picket line staff and parents went along the Willesden High Rd asking shopkeepers to display no academy notices which they were very happy to do. These notices are also being displayed in parents’ front windows and some are putting them in their cars to make sure the message is spread – no academy.

At the meeting yesterday evening in St Andrew’s Church attended by staff and parents Bridget Chapman, a speaker from the Anti Academies Alliance, said she had seen all the notices in the shops as she came from the tube station. It made a real impact. She fully supported the parents’ ballot. She said, “What are they so afraid of? She praised staff and parents for their stand against the privatisation of our education. “This is just giving away land and buildings to businesses,” she expalined.

Dawn Butler, Labour candidate for Brent Central, told parents that if Labour won the general election then she would do her utmost to get the decision to force the school into an academy reversal. She said that whatever happens on Thursday she would give full support to the campaign to have a parents’ ballot. “I say this because I believe in it. You are pushing at an open door”, she said.

Irene Scorer, parent, then handed over a petition against the academy to Dawn signed by 200 parents accounting for 290 children out of the 400 at the school. This is clearly a large majority and outstrips the 32 who said they supported the academy in the sham consultation. Many of these parents have since learning about academies changed their minds and signed the petition.

Three parents gave their views.  

Hamid El Hadi said:

I support everyone who is against this academy. This is affecting our children and the teachers are stressed. All we want is a ballot. We’re not asking for the earth.

 Bharat Gorsia said: 

We are being lied to by the school. We are told nothing will change. If it isn’t broken why fix it.

Syed Karrar told the audience that his daughter has had five teachers since Easter and that all this move to an academy had unsettled everyone. 

Hank Roberts, Brent ATL secretary also spoke and praised the commitment of staff and parents and said there was still all to win. Others who spoke from the audience agreed and there was an overall enthusiasm to continue the fight until justice prevails. Parents were informed that there would be two further days of strike action on Tuesday 12^th May and Thursday 14^th May. The unions had called off one of the strike days this week in an act of goodwill to try and reach agreement with the IEB on a ballot and TUPE negotiations. They heard on Wednesday that nothing had been agreed on any of the issues. Parents agreed that two days had to go ahead as the pressure needed to be kept up.

The unions, staff and parents have been trying to meet with key people from Brent and the LDBS to discuss things. The Bishop of Willesden declined a meeting but did say that the HMI inspection last Thursday and Friday, “they [the school] received a very favourable outcome indeed”. So, as the parents and staff say, why change the school into an academy if it has made significant improvements and likely to come out of special measures?

Messages of support from around the country were relayed to the meeting including this statement from Martin Francis, Brent Green party spokesperson on children and families.

Please convey the support of Brent Green Party for the staff and parents in their fight against forced academisation. We see academies and free schools as a form of privatisation that removes democratic accountability and prepares the way for profit making from education. Green Party policy is to integrate academies and free schools into the local authority school system.

Muhammed Butt did not attend and did not send any statement about his position with regards a ballot as he had been asked to, much to everyone’s disapproval.

Skip lorry demolishes tree in Salmon Street, Kingsbury

A tree felled by a storm is always a sad sight, it is even sadder when it has been uprooted by human agency.

This morning around 10.30 a skip lorry, driving out of a building site on Salmon Street, Kingsbury, collided with an ornamental cherry which had stood on the street's grass verge. The tree which was in full blossom, was wrenched from the ground and blocked the north bound lane for some time.

'Barry' is the elephant in the room at last Brent North hustings

What is likely to be the last of the Brent North constituency hustings was held at St George's Parish Hall in Sudbury yesterday evening.

There have been very few hustings in Brent North where Barry Gardiner is the Labour incumbent. Concerned at the lack of opportunity for local residents to hear from candidates (in comparison with the 21 hustings in Hampstead and Kilburn), Luke Parker the Conservative candidate asked St George's Roman Catholic Church if they would be willing to hold a hustings where all the candidates could be heard.

The Church agreed but Barry Gardiner refused to attend.  In a letter read out last night he declined the invitation because he claimed the hustings had been organised by the Conservatives and that the chairing would not be neutral. This was not very popular with some of the audience.

The event went ahead with Luke Parker, Paul Lorber (Lib Dem), Scott Bartle (Green) and Elcena Jeffers (Independent) . The chairing was minimal, amounting to little more than a welcome, thank you and choosing questioners from raised arms in the audience.

I have attended many hustings over the last few weeks and I can honestly say that this was refreshingly open and honest.  It was more of a conversation than a debate with different views set out and listened to with respect.  Free of pre-arranged questions (and pre-arranged answers) the result enabled ideas to be explored and candidates to speak from their personal experience, even setting out where they disagreed with their own party policy.

One questioner asked which of Barry Gardiner's actions as an MP had won candidates' approval and which they disagreed with.

It was a pity that Gardiner was not there to respond.

Tories call for Brent Scrutiny changes following delegation refusal

Following the decision of the Scrutiny Committee last night to not allow the delegation from Philip Grant, unless he undertook not to mention the Employment Tribunal case involving Cara Davani, Cllr John Warren (Con, Brondesbury Park)  has issued the following statement.

The Scrutiny Committee has  yet again failed to do its job by rejecting a hearing of the Grant deputation on the Pavey H.R.report. It is another nail in its coffin.

Effective scrutiny must surely be challenging, controversial and "go where others do not go."  

Current scrutiny is useless with an ineffective Chairman....it simply has no credibility and does not hold the Executive to account.  I am proposing changes to the Constitution at the Council AGM on May 20, including the deletion of the current Scrutiny Committee.

My thoughts are along the lines that we need more scrutiny panels who will concentrate on specific areas of expertise, but I am open to any suggestions before I submit my proposals. 

The issues resulting from the high profile ET case cannot be swept under the carpet by a lame review.It is very undemocratic to deny Philip the chance to speak on, what any reasonable person would I think agree, issues that Brent has failed to address at every stage.

Cllr Reg Colwill (Con, Kenton) was on the Scrutiny Committee last night and  did not speak but appeared to go along with the decision not to hear Philip Grant's deputation.

Electric Run: Evening road closures in Wembley Park tomorrow

The Electric Run is being held around Wembley Park on Saturday 2 May. There will be some evening road closures in the area.

Engineers Way

Between the south-eastern kerb-line of Empire Way (allowing access to Brent Civic Centre) and the western kerb-line of Wembley Retail Park entrance from 5pm on Saturday 2 May to 1am on Sunday 3 May.

South Way

Between the south-eastern kerb-line of Empire Way (allowing access to hotels opposite Wembley Stadium Station) and the junction with First Way from 7pm to 11pm on Saturday.

Rutherford Way

No access on to Engineers Way from Fulton Road from 5pm on Saturday 2 May to 1am on Sunday 3 May.

More information on the Electric Run  LINK

Brent North Hustings Tonight (Friday)

A last-minute hustings has been organised this evening at St George's Church, Sudbury. It will start at 7.30pm.

It is in the Parish Centre just behind the church in St Andrew's Avenue off the Harrow Road. LINK

Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Brent’s cover-up continues (or, another Deputation that the Council would not hear!)

Guest blog by Philip Grant

“Wembley Matters” readers may be interested to know what happened at Brent’s Scrutiny Committee meeting this evening (Thursday 30 April). 

Before it started, I was treated to the sight of Cllr. Butt sitting next to Cara Davani (Director of HR and Administration), laughing and joking with her, and pointing me out as the person who had come to present a Deputation about Equalities and HR. I don’t know why the Council Leader was there, except perhaps to impress on the committee members sitting opposite him that Ms Davani was under his protection, so they had better not do anything that might annoy her.

The Chair, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, soon got on to the question of the Deputation from Phil Grant, and said that there was a matter to sort out before I presented it. He asked for my agreement that if I were allowed to speak, I should not refer to any individual legal cases, as Brent’s Chief Legal Officer had advised me earlier in the day. 

I replied that I could not accept this restriction, for the reasons I had set out in an email sent to all of his committee members, and copied to the Legal Officer, some hours ago, which had not been answered. The legal case I wished to refer to was the one which Cllr Pavey’s review had been set up, as Christine Gilbert (interim Chief Executive, and also present) had announced last September, to learn the lessons from that case. As one of the points I wished to make was that an important lesson had not been learned, and both of the points required reference to the case in order to explain the reasons for what I wanted to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on, that case was relevant to committee’s consideration, and could not be ignored.

There was some further discussion with the senior Brent Lawyer, Arnold Meagher, at the meeting, who said that as the case involved had not been fully concluded, I should not be allowed to refer to it. I responded, saying that I would only be referring to “findings of fact” from the judgment in the case, and that judgment was final as it was no longer under appeal. I could not see how any reference to that part of the case would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing, at which the compensation award would be decided. I don’t think that this point was ever answered by Mr Meagher.

Cllr. Choudry said that he would discuss with his committee whether they should allow me to speak, as I would not accept the condition he had set out. There was a rather disjointed “discussion”, with several members of the committee speaking, but I could not follow what they were saying because they forgot to turn their microphones on. It seemed to be about the Legal Officer saying that I could not refer to the legal case I wanted to, but whether they viewed this as legal advice, or a legal instruction to the committee, was unclear. It appeared that the Chair was about to ask the committee to vote on the matter (which under Brent’s Standing Order 69(a)(i) he should have done, with only a simple majority being required to allow a Deputation to be received), but after further mumbled discussions Cllr. Choudry announced that I would not be allowed to present my Deputation, and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Before leaving the meeting, I handed out the dozen printed copies of my Deputation I had taken with me to members of the public, co-opted members of the committee and other councillors present who wanted them, and I am setting out the text of what I would have said below, for anyone who wishes to read it.

Deputation to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April, in respect of item 9:
Cllr. Pavey’s Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan.

I am speaking as an individual, but am aware that many local people, including Council employees and some Brent councillors, share the concerns I am raising.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgment against Brent Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani, finding that a former employee had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed.

Cllr. Pavey’s review of Equalities and HR policies and practices was set up ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. In the foreword to his review he says:

‘Policies are mostly sound. But policies are implemented by people and we need to do more to ensure that they are consistently applied.’

What Cllr. Pavey could not say, because his review’s terms of reference did not allow him to actually consider the Rosemarie Clarke case, was that an important lesson which should be learned is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.

As an example, in guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director you can find statements like: ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Rosemarie Clarke had raised a grievance against Cara Davani, because she felt she was being bullied and harassed by her. This led to a succession of acts of victimisation against her, recorded as findings of fact by the Tribunal, such as in para. 302 of the judgment:

‘'The tribunal is satisfied that the action of Ms Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did, was a direct consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal finds that the claimant was thereby victimised.'

There were other findings of fact by the Tribunal about total failures to follow HR policies, which provided evidence of Brent’s constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke. Para. 176 of the judgment says:

'The tribunal finds that, from the correspondence from Ms Gilbert on 21 February, addressing the claimant's grievance of 18 February, so as to conclude and dispense with the grievance, this was not in accordance with the first respondent's [Brent’s] procedure and a breach of contract.'

If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani why she did not do the honourable thing, and resign, following the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke case. It may also wish to ask Ms Gilbert why she did not institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms Davani when she failed to resign. If, having heard anything those Officers wish to say, committee members agree that the Equalities and HR Action Plan cannot move forward with Cara Davani still at Brent Council, I hope they will not be afraid to say so.

The second point I would ask Scrutiny Committee to consider is at Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of Appendix 2].  This has been prepared by Cara Davani, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’. 

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposes. This reads: 

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give. 

As an example, in the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment it says:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made.’

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert to tell them who did make that decision, and why. The stain of the ‘racial discrimination’ verdict against Brent Council cannot be removed, nor the Action Plan succeed, until a full and honest answer is given.

“Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would recommend that the “criteria” should be: 

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:
‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’ 

Thank you.

Philip Grant
30 April 2015.

Note from Martin Francis: Readers may be interested in seeing the Scrutiny Committee in action discussing whether Philip Grant should be heard. Unfortunately most councillors did not switch on their microphones so the public could not hear what was being said. Muhammed Butt is sitting with Cara Davani in the right hand corner of the horse shoe.