Duffy claims he was punished by Butt & Co for saving council tax payers up to £500k

Councillor John Duffy (Labour Kilburn) reveals in his blog today LINK that he is snubbed by the Council's Labour leadership and some other members of the Labour group scarcely speak to him. 

This is despite his vigilance over the green waste contract that was out-sourced to Veolia.  Duffy successfully challenged a clause that gave Veolia any income from the scheme once the collection target of £400k had been achieved. His claim that this would be illegal was eventually supported by the Chief Finance Officer despite Duffy initially getting the brush off from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council when he raised concerns.

Duffy says:

You may think Brent Council Labour group thanks me for this. No the leadership of Brent Council Labour group are unforgiving that I forced this amendment, they took me off all committees; many of the Labour group hardly talk to me or shy away. They seat me next to the Tory group (a fate worse than death) as they believe by forcing the amendment I undermined their authority. One member of the Cabinet accused me of bullying officers because I would not let it drop. I am not allowed to speak at full council. If I do members of the cabinet heckle me.

Cllr Duffy claims that the Council could benefit by up to £500k  in contrast to the council tax money that Veolia would have handed to the contractor. He is concerned, however, that the additional money will be spent on Council vanity projects rather than supporting vital services.

Concluding his posting Duffy says he is going on holiday but on his return will  reveal why St Patrick's Day may not be coming to Brent and 'the tale of the missing nomination'.

Dawn Butler gives Brent FoE her views on pressing environmental issues

Brent Friends of the Earth have issued the following account of their meeting with Dawn Butler, Labour, Brent Central, when they lobbied her over Climate Change.

 

Six members of Brent Friends of the Earth (Brent FoE) met with Brent Central MP Dawn Butler at the House of Commons this Wednesday 17^th June as part of a climate change lobby of Parliament.

The campaigners joined thousands of concerned people from all around the country to take part in 'For the Love of' – a mass lobby to urge MPs to take urgent action on climate change. The Brent group focussed their views on fracking, solar schools, fuel poverty, and airport expansion, and found much common ground with their newly-elected MP.

On fracking, Dawn is now as signatory to Labour MP Geraint Davies' “Fracking (Measurement and Regulation of Impacts) (Air, Water and Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Bill”, which hopes to stop fracking through making the contamination of water used and the emissions created by the process illegal. Fracking uses vast quantities of water along with toxic chemicals to extract shale gas. Forcing companies to clean this up would make extraction too expensive. She supports Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham MP in calling for a moratorium on this controversial technology in order to concentrate efforts on supporting renewables. Both Wales and Scotland already have moratoriums in place.

Viv Stein, Spokesperson for Brent FoE says, “With a decision due next week on whether to approve the UK's first fracking site in Lancashire, it is vital that we put a stop to fracking now. Giving the go ahead to this dirty fossil fuel there could pave the way for more fracking up and down the country, including a proposed site at Park Royal in Brent. It would also reduce the chance of preventing irreversible climate change. We need to leave shale gas in the ground and invest in renewable energy instead.”

“Fracking companies and the Government need to know they will find huge opposition wherever they plan to drill. We were pleased that Dawn Butler agrees that we should put a stop to fracking now, and that renewable energy is the way forward to secure our energy needs.”

On renewable energy, Brent FoE have been instrumental in setting up a local community energy co-operative, 'Brent Pure Energy', to put solar panels on schools and public buildings. Dawn favours extending the scheme to local churches and a mosque in Willesden Green, and she is also setting up a 'Green Cabinet' to focus attention on sustainability in Brent.

Dawn this week was voted Vice Chair of PRASEG, the All Party Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group - a group of MPs and senior industry stakeholders working together to promote issues around sustainable and renewable energy in Parliament. As Vice Chair Dawn will play a leading role in helping PRASEG hold the government to account and ensuring the UK plays a leading role worldwide on energy and climate change.

Ensuring warmer homes and ending fuel poverty is also a particular concern for both Brent FoE and Dawn. As a Magistrate she sees many people in court penalised for defaulting on energy bills. She wants to end the high tariffs charged by pre-payment meters, and to encourage landlords to insulate homes. NHS budgets will also benefit as cold homes mean poor health.

Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central says, “Ending fuel poverty and protecting tenants against excessive fuel bills are high on my agenda. I'm on board - Friends of the Earth are pushing on an open door with me on this, but it's not so open it's letting all the energy out!”

On airport expansion Dawn opposes the proposed expansion at Heathrow, but is not convinced that future expansion might be needed based on 'the business case'. She supports London Mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan, who has come out against Heathrow. FoE believe airports should not be allowed to expand, and that most of the extra capacity is for transfers so would not make much impact on UK business. The group did not agree with Dawn's belief that there are 'greener' planes. We believe the only 'green' plane is the 'solar impulse' a solar powered plane, which recently paused its round the world flight. Flying still remains the most carbon-intensive form of travel.

The lobby of Parliament is was organised by the Climate Coalition – the UK's largest group of people dedicated to action on climate change. For more details see http://fortheloveof.org.uk/. Brent FoE has a website at www.brentfoe.com. To sign FoE's urgent petition to keep Lancashire frack free go to https://www.foe.co.uk/act/psfl.

Brent Labour fail to grasp nettle of Davani pay-off

I missed last night's Brent Council meeting but checking the Twitter feed it is clear that Labour made no attempt to address the issue of a pay-off to Cara Davani, controversial head of Brent HR, who resigned recently:

Ahead of the meeting Philip Grant had writtent the following email to his ward councillors:

Dear Fryent Ward councillors,

You have probably heard that on Wednesday a Council spokesperson confirmed that Cara Davani, Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, is leaving the Council at the end of June, to take a career break. If you had not heard, you can read the announcement, and reaction to it, at:

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/cara-devani-leaving-brent-council-to.html

While the Council’s statement praises ‘the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years’, it does not mention Ms Davani’s misdeeds, such as her vicious actions against a Brent employee as shown by findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. That case has already cost Brent Council probably a six-figure sum in legal fees, and will land the Council with a further bill, quite possibly a seven-figure sum (i.e. more than £1 million) in compensation, damages and costs when the remedy hearing makes its decision (likely to be in about three months time).

Given this background, and the serious damage done to Brent’s reputation by the finding that the Council “racially discriminated” against Ms Clarke, I am seriously concerned (as are many others) about the financial terms on which Ms Davani may be leaving the Council’s employment. She is leaving at the end of June, and I would not seek to interfere with her salary entitlement up to that date (even though any decent person would have resigned when the judgment was published last September, and any other Chief Executive would have either insisted on that resignation or taken immediate action to dismiss her for gross misconduct). However, that last salary payment should be the only further financial reward that Cara Davani receives from Brent Council.

There should be no other “payoff” or leaving payment of whatever description made to her. If Ms Davani has been “persuaded” to leave now, there is talk of a possible “compromise package” - which, I understand, following changes made to HR procedures during Ms Davani’s reign, would normally be agreed on by either the Director of HR or the Chief Executive. As she is the Director of HR, the Chief Executive (Christine Gilbert) is her friend and former colleague from Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted, who she helped to bring into Brent in 2012, the interim Director of HR is to be Mildred Phillips (another former colleague, first brought into Brent as an interim consultant, then given a permanent position and promoted by Ms Davani to be her deputy), it would not be possible for the amount of any payment, even if one were deserved (which it most certainly would not), to be arrived at on an arm’s length basis. It may be that she is leaving now, while she still has “friends in high places”.

[And please don’t suggest that the terms of any payment might be agreed instead by Brent’s Principal Employment Lawyer - Ms Davani’s personal and business partner, Andy Potts - or by its Chief Operating Officer, Lorraine Langham, another former colleague of Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets and Ofsted. It is the extent of this “cronyism” at high levels in Brent Council that has previously allowed Ms Davani to get away with her actions against Rosemarie Clarke, and other now-former employees of the Council.]

The is another financial aspect of Cara Davani’s leaving Brent which councillors need to ensure is handled properly. The full title of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case is Ms RC Clarke v. 1) The London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. Ms Davani is a separately named respondent in the case, even though it appears that she did not have separate legal representation at the full Tribunal hearing, with Brent’s barrister (at Brent’s expense) effectively defending her as well. There should be no agreement made under which Brent agrees to pay, or indemnify Ms Davani in respect of, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally as the second respondent in the case. I also believe that Brent should make clear to Ms Davani that she will need to arrange and pay for her own legal representation in the case after she leaves the Council’s employment at the end of June. 

At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent’s Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council’s HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent’s most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.

I hope you will agree with the two propositions which I have highlighted, and that you will take early action to see that these are put in place. I would suggest that you could ask for “Departure from the Council of the Director of HR and Administration” as an item to be put on the agenda for the Full Council meeting on 22 June, with the current Chief Executive (or her representative, if Ms Gilbert is not available to attend) making a statement about Ms Davani’s departure, and then giving members the chance to comment or ask questions. The Chief Executive should give at least outline details of any planned payments, over and above her basic salary to 30 June 2015, which are proposed, and in particular, be asked to confirm that Ms Davani will be personally liable for any award made in respect of her as the second respondent in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and that Brent will not pay, or indemnify her in any way, in respect of such an award against Cara Davani personally. I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, for her information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and let me have at least a brief response to my comments, which reflect the views of many people, even though I am the one articulating them to you. Please feel free to forward this email to any of your fellow councillors, if you wish to seek their views before deciding what action you should take in response to it. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.

Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.

And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”

Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 

A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).

The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:

Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate

For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.

Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate

For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy

Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding

For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy

These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.

This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.

There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.

Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.

Kilburn councillor launches blog with email revelations over Brent HS2 vent meeting

Cllr John Duffy, Labour, Kilburn ward has launched a blog site this morning, Kilburn Calling,  LINK which states as its intention 'A blog that speaks out about the issues and concerns of people who live in the Kilburn area of the London Borough of Brent'.

Cllr Duffy attempted to persuade the Labour Group to raise Council Tax during the pre-budget consultation, arguing that to do so could prevent some of the worse of the cuts, particularly the ending of funding to Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

At the last full Council Meeting (there is another tonight) he protested that Kilburn had become disenfranchised because none of its councillors had been allocated places on Council committees.

In a posting today LINK he reveals what he claims to be an attempt by a senior Brent officer to stop him informing residents about his attendance at a key meeting on the controversial HS2 vent issue.

This is what he says:

A funny thing happen to me over the weekend, I received a email from a senior officer in Brent council, telling me about a meeting to discuss the HS2 train link running under Kilburn and the placing of the vent shaft.

The email said:

“Please accept this meeting request for discussions on the HS2 Vent Shaft issue that has arisen.
XXXX has called this meeting to ensure you all have the opportunity to be factually briefed on the issue, especially from the South Kilburn Regeneration perspective.
The meeting will be held at xxxxx. xxxxx (full address below). Please ask for XXXX XXXX upon arrival”.

I accepted the invitation to the meeting and believed I should inform the Chair of the local residents to highlight the fact that I was attending and therefore assuring them that their voice was being heard. So I forwarded the email to the Chair of the local residents a Mr F and merely added “FYI”. Believing that I had acted as a good councilor, I then prepared to enjoy my weekend. 

However on Friday night I received this letter from a Senior Director, which he had cc the leader of the council. Saying that he noticed I had forwarded his email stating.

Dear Councillor Duffy,

This is a private briefing for the new MP, the Leader, and relevant Lead Members from the cabinet and ward councilors only. It isn't an open meeting for members of the public or wider party members. I would wholly expect one outcome of the meeting to be wider consultation and engagement on the issues and we can discuss the approach to this at the meeting.

Can I leave you to inform Mr F of this situation please?
 
Thanks - see you next week
 
I was initially taken back by what I saw of an invasion of my private correspondence with a Constituent. However it would seem that Brent council operate a system that traces any person to whom they have sent an invitation to and any other person that the recipient forwards it onto. This despite the fact that the email did not state it was private or secret.

Because of my concern about this I then forwarded this note to two other colleagues asking them to advise me about what I saw as intrusion into my private email correspondence with my constituents.
To my amazement I received another email from the Director, which was sent to all of the three of my constituents I had emailed. Which said:

Dear Mr P, Mr G, MR K,

I understand that you have been forwarded a notification of the above meeting by Cllr Duffy.
Regrettably this meeting is a private briefing for local politicians and therefore attendance is restricted and I am afraid that you won't be able to attend.
One of the purposes of the meeting is to discuss how we best engage and consult with the many different residents and partners who have an interest in this issue with a view to ensuring that everybody's voice is heard.  I will make sure you are all notified of the relevant consultation meetings when they are set up.

Many apologies for the misunderstanding.”

Summary


It is clear the officer involved believes he alone controls the meeting; his way of dealing with councilors is by dictating to them and believes he can instruct councilors to obey him, because presumably he is an officer.

The way the officer has handle this situation and the tone of his emails is of great concern to me, it reeks of “big brother ” and his interference by directly emailing my constituents is frankly unbelievable. It is as if I had been a very “ bad boy “ and he is telling me off. It is condescending and I believe undermines the respect officers should show to elected representatives.

I am sure there are many Cabinet Members and Councilors, who believe they should just obey officers’ instructions and do what ever they say, and do not stand their ground. This officer seems to have confused me with one of them. 

I was quite happy to attend the meeting itself. I never invited anyone else contrary to the officer’s wild allegation. This meeting is about the vent shaft for HS2.  There are two options being discussed: one in Queens Park  (next to the station) and the other in South Kilburn next to St Mary’s RC School in the middle of the regeneration area that has been blighted as a building site for the last nine years.
I however do not accept the implicit suggestion from these officers that this will be sited (as indicated in their first e-mail) in the South Kilburn regeneration area. These residents have lived on a building site for last 9 years and have been shafted by the Tory government over the years by cuts in services, the bedroom tax and family credits etc. So I will attend the meeting to do my best to ensure the residents of South Kilburn are not literally “Shafted” again by both the Tory Government and over zealous Officers.

Greens out in force at End Austerity Now! demonstration

The extent of the Green Party's recent growth was evident at today's End Austerity Now! demonstration as well as the youth of many of our new members.

There were high spirits as hundreds of Greens processed through the streets of London in the company of thousands of other anti-austerity protesters. The Labour Party was  notably absent apart from the presence of leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.

Unconfirmed reports say that the Green Bloc was the biggest bloc today.

At the Green Bloc assembly point in Cornhill, City of London Photo: Mike Shaughnessy  

Green Party Trade Union Group  Photo: Shahrar Ali

Green Party leaders Amelia Womack, Shahrar Ali and Natalie Bennett Photo: Amelia Womack

Fightback against the Education & Adoption Bill - House of Commons Meeting on Monday

Education policy failed to become a key factor in the General Election and we are now faced with five years of intensification of the Government's version of the GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) with the eventual aim of opening up state education to profit and the subservience of education to the demands of neoliberalism and globalisation. This is embodied in the Education and Adoption Bill currebtly before Parliament.

The Green Party fought the election with policies opposing the GERM and the associated academies and free schools programme, high stakes testing, narrow curriculum, performance related pay and policing of the system by a politicised Ofsted.

The meeting at the House of Commons on Monday organised by the Anti Academies Alliance* therefore comes at an opportune time to stand back and discuss where we go from here.

Of particular concern is the future of education for children with special educational needs and disabilities as well as the 'schoolification' of the early years.

I hope as many Green Party members and supporters will attend the meeting as possible.

This is what the Anti Academies Alliance circulated ahead of the meeting:

If  You Thought the 2010 Academies Act was Bad…..

The 2015 Education and Adoption Bill, described by the Local Schools Network as signalling ‘the new authoritarian conservative Britain’ will have its second reading next week. We have grave concerns about this Bill, which includes the rapid expansion of the free schools and academies programme, and the effect it will have on our schools. Therefore, on Monday 22 June from 6.00pm, while MPs debate the Bill, we’ll be hosting an open meeting in the House of Commons  to discuss how to oppose it. Visitors will need to go through security so allow plenty of time if you’d like to join us. 

As well as Alasdair Smith AAA national secretary, speakers include Henry Stewart of the Local Schools Network, Caroline Lucas MP, Catherine West MP and Clive Lewis MP who used his maiden speech to protest at the Inspiration Trust’s takeover of Hewett School in Norwich. 

Although the Bill promises that ‘coasting’ schools will be converted to academy status, it does not define ‘coasting’.  Will it be based on Ofsted judgements, pupil data or the whim of the Secretary of State or her viceroys – the Regional Schools Commissioners?  RSCs, whose personal key performance indicators include the number of academy conversions, will be given new powers to intervene in maintained schools.  The new Act, if passed, will see governors, councillors and local communities forced to implement the academy ‘solution’ whether or not they think it’s in the best interest of their children. And what of the ‘failing’ academies and free schools?  These are handed to the DfE’s academy sponsor of choice – no doubt a chain - without public scrutiny or consultation.  The price of ‘autonomy’ seems to be even more centralised control from Whitehall.

Free Schools in Free Fall

The Secretary of State found it difficult to put her finger on the number of ‘failing’ academies but one thing she can be sure of - it’s on the rise. Just take a look at our Twitter timeline @antiacademies or our Facebook page. This week we learned that a Catholic Free School in Camborne, Cornwall which cost £4.5million for only 60 pupils, is to be taken over by another sponsor. Also in the South West, Route 39 Academy has been judged to require improvement. Opening in North Devon with less than half the promised number of students, this was the school that offered free farm park tickets to parents who signed up to support their bid. 

40% Off at Ofsted

In an ironic twist, Ofsted has abandoned its own free market experiment and brought its inspectors in-house. The profit-making giants like Serco and Tribal that inspect our schools will lose their contracts from the start of next term.  However a whopping 40% of existing inspectors failed to get the in-house jobs.  And Ofsted told the TES that an ‘initial sift’ of additional inspectors took out about 500 who lacked the relevant qualifications or leadership experience, or did not possess qualified teacher status. 

And Finally

We bid a not so fond farewell to the Independent Academies Association which is closing in the face of insolvency. The Association, whose honorary president is Lord Andrew Adonis, acknowledged that in the future our children will be educated in Multi Academy Trusts – ‘chains’ to you and me – rather than individual ‘autonomous’ academies.

* Declaration of Interest: I am a member of th National Steering Group of the Anti academies Alliance

Green Bloc & other Bloc meeting points/route for June 20th End Austerity Now! demo

The Green Bloc meeting point has been changed for tomorrow's demonstration. The Green Party will now meet at Cornhill/Royal Exchange for 11.30am.

This interactive map should be helpful:

 
Details of Short March and other information for people with disabilities HERE (Thanks to Alan Wheatley for prompt)