Charity to take over management of Brent's Children's Centres to save £0.75m

Cllr Michael Pavey and the then Shadow Chamcellor Ed Balls and Shadow Children's Minister Sharon Hodgson in February 2013 at the launch of Labour Friends of Sure Start (FOSS)

This is a Press Release from Brent Council and I invite comments and views from readers. 
 

Leading children’s charity Barnardo’s will manage children’s centres across the borough as part of a new partnership model with Brent Council which will keep open the highly valued centres.

Brent Council’s Cabinet has agreed to award a four-year contract for managing the operations of 14 children’s centres to Barnardo’s, which already runs more than 170 children’s centres in the UK. Its centres aim to promote the inclusion of all children, their families and carers in a safe and nurturing environment.

Barnardo’s will work in partnership with Brent Council to manage the transfer of children’s centre staff to the charity, and the council will retain an oversight of the centres’ performance and Ofsted inspections.

The four-year contract will save Brent Council around £750,000. Brent Council has experienced significant reductions in central government funding, which contributes to running services such as children’s centres, and must save around £54million over the next two years.

The decision by the Cabinet was made after a significant consultation with parents, community groups, voluntary sector, staff and schools about the future of children’s centres in the borough.

Councillor Ruth Moher, Lead Member for Children and Young People, said:

“We are in an era of unprecedented cuts to local authority finances which means it is becoming harder than ever to protect the front-line services so prized by our residents.

“That’s why I’m pleased we have been able to agree to award a contract to Barnardo’s which will keep open these 14 children’s centres in Brent so they can continue to provide such fantastic support to many children and families.”

Lynn Gradwell, Director of Barnardo’s in London, said:

“We are thrilled to have been awarded this contract and excited to start working with the many thousands of Brent families who use these 14 children’s centres.

“Barnardo’s is committed to providing the very best service to children and young people in Brent, to their parents and carers, to the council and to the dedicated staff members who will transfer over to Barnardo’s. We are working hard to make the transition as seamless as possible and are looking forward to getting started.”

The 14 children’s centres which will transfer to Barnardo’s are: Treetops, Wykeham Primary; Wembley Children’s Centre, Alperton Children’s Centre, Preston Park Children’s Centre; The Welcome Children’s Centre, Granville Plus Children’s Centre, Three Trees Children’s Centre, Hope Children’s Centre, Harmony Children’s Centre, St Raphael’s Children’s Centre; Church Lane Children’s Centre, Mount Stewart Children’s Centre; Willow Children’s Centre.

Three other children’s centres - Fawood, Curzon Crescent and Challenge House - are excluded from the partnership agreement and will continue as present.

The new model for the children’s centres will be implemented from autumn 2015.

Helps stop family's eviction: Monday Sweets Way N20 ONT 8am for 9am start

 urgent Mesdage from Sweets Way Resists LINK

CALL-OUT: Keep Mostafa’s family in Sweets Way, Monday, August 10, 8am, 46 Sweets Way, N20 0NT (Meet at Sweetstopia, 95 Sweets Way)



Mostafa’s family are the last remaining family on the Sweets Way estate. They have fought to stay where they are because Barnet Council have failed to provide alternative accommodation suitable to Mostafa’s physical health needs, having developed a serious disability while working as a carer three years ago.

Now they have been told that High Court bailiffs will be coming to evict the family of six on Monday morning, and we are committed to helping them stay in their homes until Barnet Council have found a truly suitable alternative accommodation for them.

In the midst of the eviction process, Barnet cut off the family’s housing benefit, leading to rent arrears, and are now using this as an excuse to avoid their duty of care to them. Both because of the Council’s horrendous treatment of Mostafa and his family, and because they are the last family standing on the estate, it is critical that we mobilise to stop this eviction!

There will be roles for people who are comfortable with different kinds of action on the day. There are always legal risks involved in stopping evictions, but we aim to make sure that everyone who is present can play a part, no matter what their level of comfort with different forms of direct action.
Regardless, we will need as many people as possible if we are to keep Mostafa in his home. Please arrive at 8am outside the gates of Sweetstopia (95 Sweets Way) for a 9am start.

DETAILS: Monday, August 10, 8am, 46 Sweets Way, London, N20 0NT (Meet at Sweetstopia, 95 Sweets Way)
About these ads

No return to Debtors' Prisons through unfair Criminal Courts Charge

From the Howard League for Penal Reform

A teenager who stole sweets and ice cream worth £5, a woman found begging in a car park and a man who kicked a flower pot after being stabbed are among thousands of people who have been ordered to pay a controversial new charge which penalises the poor and encourages the innocent to plead guilty.

Since April, magistrates and judges have been told that they must impose a mandatory Criminal Courts Charge of up to £1,200 on anyone convicted of an offence – whatever the defendant’s circumstances might be – on top of other levies such as fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges and costs. Defendants who fail to find the money risk being sent to prison.

The government has said it will review the charge after three years, but today the Howard League for Penal Reform has begun a campaign calling for the review to be brought forward to this autumn.

The charge puts pressure on people to plead guilty, as it rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates’ court to £520 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. The charge at crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. There are even plans to charge interest.

The charge removes discretion from magistrates, some of whom are reported to be resigning in despair. In many cases, money will be wasted on pursuing debts that people simply cannot pay.

The Howard League has compiled a list of more than 30 cases, all reported by local media, which show why the Criminal Courts Charge is unfair and unrealistic. They include:

·         A 26-year-old homeless man who stole a can of Red Bull worth 99p from a supermarket in South Shields, Tyne and Wear, was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge and a £15 victim surcharge.

·         A 30-year-old homeless woman was convicted in her absence of begging in a car park in Coventry, West Midlands. She was ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, a £30 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

·         A 20-year-old man who was living in a hostel in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, kicked out at a flower pot after being stabbed with a needle by a fellow resident. He became homeless. He admitted criminal damage, which placed him in breach of two conditional discharges that were imposed on him for thefts. He was fined £70 and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

·         A 37-year-old woman who stole shampoo worth £2.39 from a shop in Banbury, Oxfordshire, was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £35 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

·         A 41-year-old man who stole two tubs of ice cream worth £9.58 from a shop in Coventry, West Midlands, was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

·         A 27-year-old man who “trespassed” at a shop in Poole, Dorset, and stole three cans of drink to a value of £6.64 was ordered to pay £6.64 in compensation, a £15 victim surcharge and a £180 criminal courts charge.

·         A 26-year-old homeless man who admitted stealing drinks and chocolate worth £4.80 from a shop in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, was jailed for four weeks because of his lengthy record and made to pay a £150 criminal courts charge and an £80 victim surcharge.

·         A 19-year-old man admitted stealing sweets and ice cream to the value of £5 from a supermarket in Torquay, Devon, whilst subject to a conditional discharge imposed for two thefts. He was ordered to pay a £35 fine, a £180 criminal courts charge, a £20 victim surcharge and £85 costs.

·         A 38-year-old homeless man admitted persistently begging in Oxford, Oxfordshire, and breached an Asbo prohibiting him from sitting within 10 metres of a cash machine. He was jailed for 30 days and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge.

·         A 31-year-old woman from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, admitted stealing shower gel worth £2.39 from a pharmacy. She was jailed for 14 days and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, a £20 victim surcharge and £2.39 in compensation.

One of the most troubling cases is that of a person who wrote to their local newspaper, the Shields Gazette, for advice about the charge.

In a letter published on the newspaper’s website in July, the person wrote: “I am due to appear at Newcastle Crown Court in two weeks for an offence that I did not commit. I had planned on pleading not guilty, however I have been told that if I am found guilty I will have over £1,000 in costs to pay. Is this true?”

In June, the Exeter Express & Echo reported on a case where a judge was required to impose a £900 charge on a homeless man who had admitted shoplifting.

The newspaper reported that, as the defendant was led away, the judge asked the courtroom: 

“He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?”

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:  

“These cases are a snapshot of a failing criminal justice system. Up and down the country, people are being brought to court for minor misdemeanours and being ordered to pay a mandatory charge regardless of their circumstances.

“Some are homeless. Some have addictions. Many will be unable to pay. But the Ministry of Justice is poised to waste money it does not have on pursuing the debts. With more budget cuts on the way, ministers should be looking to shrink the system, not trapping more people in it for absurd offences.

“It was the French writer Anatole France, more than 100 years ago, who wrote that ‘In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread’. Now the law seems hell-bent on exacting charges from rich and poor alike for the privilege – but it is the poor who will find themselves entrenched in their poverty by these criminal charges.

“We do not want to see the return of debtors’ prisons. It is time for an urgent review of this unfair and unrealistic sanction, which is doing nothing to tackle crime and, in all likelihood, is making matters worse.”

Brent Members' Bulletin 'not a forum for ongoing political debate' despite Butt's message on Employment Tribunal

Cllr John Warren (Conservative, Brondesbury Park)  has taken up Muhammed Butt’s defence LINK  of decisions regarding the Employment Tribunal where the London Borough of Brent was found to have racially discriminated against a member of its staff, victimised her and constructively dismissed her.

Warren told me:

Following on from Cllr. Butt's extraordinary piece on Rosemarie Clarke in last week's Members' Information Bulletin I asked Brent Council to include a mild reply from me in this week' s bulletin.  The Council stated that Cllr. Butt was writing as Lead Member for Legal Services  and that the weekly bulletin was not to be used to continue an " ongoing debate." They refused to print my piece.  The Members' Handbook states on Page 19 that the Information Bulletin is not to be used for party- political purposes. So what was Cllr. Butt' s contribution supposed to be on such a highly politicised issue?!!  This is what I wanted to write.....hardly particularly controversial..........

Statement regarding employment tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke
(Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group)

Much has been written and said about the the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been fair and accurate.........

1. The case 3302741/2013 is listed as   Ms R.Clarke v. 1. L.B.Brent v.2. Ms Cara Davani

2.Para. 302 of the judgement states " 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."

3.Brent Council appealed the original decision of the tribunal despite the judge stating that " there was no reasonable prospect of success."

4.According to the Council press release Ms Davani left Brent at end of June 2015 to take a " career break."

5. The Council has not accepted F.O.I requests or enquiries from residents to reveal details of the " pay- off " to Ms Davani.

6. The 2015/2016 Accounts will eventually show any " compensation " payments that may or not have been made to Ms Davani.

Cllr John Warren

Referendum on Sudbury Town Plan - details

On Monday, 27 July 2015 Brent Council's Cabinet approved for the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan to progress to referendum. The referendum will take place on Thursday, 10 September 2015.

The plan has been produced by the Sudbury Town Residents' Association with involvement of the wider community. The neighbourhood plan’s overriding aim is “to create a greener, cleaner, safer Sudbury Town.” In summary, policies in the plan:

• set design criteria for shop fronts in Sudbury town centre and for the continuation of public realm works
•  seeks to protect open spaces and allow the reuse or redevelopment of buildings within Butlers Green and Barham Park, for uses which support the function of the green space
•  sets priorities for spending Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy, including public realm improvements
• identifies uses which will be appropriate in Sudbury town centre and support development that strengthens Vale Farm as a regional centre for sports excellence, whilst preserving open space.

Anyone living in the neighbourhood area (see map below) who is registered to vote in a local election will be entitled to vote in the referendum. If the majority of those who vote in the referendum are in favour then the plan will be adopted as planning policy for Sudbury. The policies within the neighbourhood plan will then form part of Brent's Local Plan and will guide development in the neighbourhood area alongside other Development Plan policies.

If you have recently moved into the area or you are not currently registered to vote, you may complete an online application at www.gov.uk/register-to-vote or ask the Electoral Services office (020 8937 1372) for a paper form. The deadline to register to vote in time for the referendum is midnight on Monday 24 August 2015.

Further information and a copy of the plan is available at www.brent.gov.uk/stnp and on the Sudbury Town Residents' Association webpage http://stra.org.uk/.    

PAY OFF FOB OFF: Christine Gilbert’s “answer” to the questions about a “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 
Christine Gilbert promised me a reply by today to the two questions I had first put to her on 9 July, and repeated in my open letter to her a week later. 

I said that I would share her reply with “Wembley Matters” readers, and it came in an email to me at 5.55pm today:

‘Dear Mr Grant, 

Thank you for your various letters and emails to the Chief Executive in relation to Cara Davani, which have been passed to me for reply.

Ms Davani, then Director of HR and Administration, left the council at the end of June 2015.  The council is grateful for the significant contribution Cara made over the last three years.

The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.  

In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

Yours sincerely 

Fiona Alderman

Chief Legal Officer

The heading to Ms Alderman’s email was “Recent correspondence”. I replied to it at 8.50pm today, under the heading “Re: Recent correspondence about possible "pay off" to Cara Davani, and your failure to reply to it”, as follows:-

‘Dear Ms Gilbert and Ms Alderman,

I am replying to Ms Alderman’s email to me today at 17:55, headed “Recent correspondence”. I am also writing this to Ms Gilbert, who my correspondence was addressed to, and who must accept the responsibility for answering the two questions which I raised, as Brent’s interim Chief Executive and its Head of Paid Service, and as the person who must know the answers to those questions.

The main statement in your email of 3 August is in exactly the same words as Ms Gilbert’s email to me of 8 July:

‘The council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.’

You have not explained why you believe you 'cannot legally disclose', although that is not the main point here. The original reply in these words was to an email of 30 June in which I had made a formal request for information including details of amounts and arrangements in connection with Ms Davani’s departure from Brent Council. You are now using the same reply to my email request of 9 July, repeated in my open letter to Christine Gilbert of 16 July. That request was specifically drafted so that Ms Gilbert did not have to disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure. That request has not been replied to, and I will set it out again here:

‘I believe it is reasonable to ask you again to reply, openly and honestly, to Council staff, elected councillors and publicly to Brent’s residents, to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions I put to you:

1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council's employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015?   YES or NO.

2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties?   YES or NO.’

After I first put these questions, Ms Gilbert replied on 10 July: ‘I have passed these to Ms Fiona Alderman, Chief Legal Officer, for her consideration. She will respond to you in due course.’ I now wonder whether her instruction to Ms Alderman was not ‘please reply to these questions on my behalf’, but ‘please find an excuse for not replying to these questions, and delay responding to the email for as long as possible’. 

The whole point of this correspondence, from my point of view, has been to highlight the serious concerns which many people have expressed over rumours of a “pay off” by Brent to Cara Davani, and to seek to resolve those concerns by either getting confirmation that the rumours are unfounded, or by getting those responsible for deciding on such a “pay off” to explain their reasons for agreeing it. That is what Brent’s Constitution, and the principles of conduct in public life, expect of you as senior Council officers in delivering openness and accountability. Instead you seem determined to prevaricate, and not to resolve those serious concerns, which I know that a number of elected councillors share. 

I would ask you to read again my open letter to Christine Gilbert of 16 July 2015, and the question which I included in the letter which I had published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”:

‘What are senior officers at Brent Council trying to hide from us, and why?’

I acknowledge that Ms Alderman did refer to my second question in her email to me today, saying: 

‘In relation to your separate question regarding compensation, the remedies hearing in the case of Ms Clarke has not yet determined any compensation award and, as such it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.’

I accept that the remedies hearing has yet been finalised, but that does not mean that the question I asked cannot be answered now. If Brent has not agreed ‘to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council,’ then the answer to that question should be “yes”. If the Employment Tribunal, based on all the evidence that it heard and read, and the findings of fact that it made from that evidence, decides that any compensation, damages or costs should be awarded against Ms Davani personally, as distinct from the award(s) that it will decide to make against Brent Council (on the basis of its judgement of September 2014), then Brent Council should accept the Tribunal’s decision, and its Chief Executive should commit the Council to do so. 

It might be argued that Brent Council should pay all of the compensation, damages and costs awarded to Ms Clarke, as Ms Davani, though a separately named respondent in the case, was acting as an employee of Brent Council. I dealt with this point in my first email raising concerns over this matter, of 12 June 2015 to my Fryent Ward councillors and copied to the Chief Executive, explaining why, if any award were made against Ms Davani personally, Brent should not pick up the bill:

‘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 would only add that, in these circumstances, any payment by Brent of any awards made against Ms Davani personally would be a misuse of Council funds.

I look forward to receiving from Christine Gilbert her honest answers to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions above by the end of this week.

I am copying this email to the councillors to whom our previous correspondence on this matter was copied, and will also make it openly available, in the public interest.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.’

'Misrepresentation' and the racial discrimination Judgment against Brent Council

Guest blog by Philip Grant. This is Philip's response to Muhammed Butt's statement  LINK on the Davani issue.

Dear Councillor Butt,

Your statement (to members of the Council?) about the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case has been published on the "Wembley Matters" blog website, and I am writing to respond to some of the points you have made, as I suspect that I am one of the main sources of the alleged 'untruths' which you have referred to. You have said:

'Much has been written and said about the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been inaccurate and unfair.  The Council’s normal policy is not to comment on the detail of individual cases and for a considerable time we have held to this line. However, the time has come where the Council needs to set out the facts in the light of continued misrepresentation of the judgement.'

I have written to you about this case on a number of occasions since May 2014 (when it was reported in a local newspaper), and on 21 September 2014 I wrote to you saying:

'I can understand you not wishing to comment on this matter publicly when you had an election to win, and when the Employment Tribunal proceedings were still in progress, but now that the judgement has been made, and is in the public domain, you as Leader of the Council need to be seen to be taking the right action to deal with it.'

Sadly, having done nothing about the case for more than ten months (other than assisting senior officers in an attempted cover-up of the facts), it is you who is now trying to misrepresent the Judgment. 

As you may not have it readily available, I will remind you of what I wrote to you on 28 September 2014, referring to comments I had made on the "Brent & Kilburn Times" website under an article reporting that Brent had announced it would appeal against the judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and giving advice on how the Council could, in practice, mitigate the finding of "racial discrimination" against it by not appealing, but by telling the truth instead:

‘Brent may have obtained 'independent legal advice', but who at Brent Council assessed that advice, and who are the 'we' who decided to appeal?

  

Presumably Fiona Ledden was involved, but her judgement on this is seriously compromised by the lack of credibility of the evidence she gave (on oath?) to the tribunal over who made the decision to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had left Brent's employment, which is at the heart of the racial discrimination finding against the Council. If Andy Potts, Brent's Senior Employment Lawyer, was involved, he appears to have a conflict of interest, as Ms Davani's partner in their private lives. The barrister or QC who gave the advice may have pointed out some weaknesses in the tribunal's judgement, but would also have a vested interest in the matter because of the large fees they could earn if Brent did appeal.

 

As I have said in the second of my comments attached, any appeal against the tribunal's decision can only be made on points of law (or 'legal errors', as your statement puts it) - the facts have been found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, and that evidence supports their findings that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised, by Ms Davani and by Brent as her employer. Once Ms Clarke had established, on good evidence, that she had been treated differently from Clive Heaphy, the legal onus was on Brent to show why the difference in treatment was a valid one, and Brent completely failed to do that. That was why, in the circumstances, the tribunal was correct, in law, to find that racial discrimination was a factor in the victimisation and constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke.

 

You will see, from my second comment that I don't believe that racial discrimination was the main reason (if a reason at all) for the victimisation. On the evidence, Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani because she had the courage to complain that she was being bullied by Ms Davani, and rather than giving her the proper protection required by its procedures, Brent allowed Ms Davani to play an increasingly vicious role against Ms Clarke. It is possible that Ms Davani genuinely thought that Ms Clarke was "playing the system" (there is no evidence on this), but even if she did, as Brent's top HR Officer she should have followed the rules, and not allowed her anger at Ms Clarke to override her professional responsibilities.

 

The problem for Brent got worse after Ms Clarke made her claim to the Employment Tribunal. It was decided to fight her claim by carrying on with disciplinary proceedings against Ms Clarke, in the hope that by finding her guilty of gross misconduct they could claim that if she had not resigned, she would have been dismissed anyway. That tactic backfired, especially after Brent could not (or would not) admit who had made that decision. I referred to para. 240 of the judgement in my email of 21 September, and have included the full text of it in my second comment attached. If Fiona Ledden did not make the decision herself, as she stated in her oral evidence, she would have known who it was made by. I suspect that it was probably made by either Cara Davani or Andy Potts, but Ms Ledden would have known that if she disclosed that to the tribunal the judgement would inevitably have gone against Brent Council. 

You have announced that Brent will appeal, but hopefully that appeal has not been submitted to the High Court yet. There is a way of "clearing Brent's name" over the racial discrimination issue without wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of funds the Council cannot afford, and which it should be spending instead on meeting the needs of local people, rather than in trying to protect Cara Davani. The way is by giving the true reason for the victimisation, and I will explain how this could be achieved. 

... The "U turn" over the appeal can be achieved by either you, or Cllr. Pavey under his review, finding that on further examination of the facts, the real reason why Rosemarie Clarke was victimised was because of the personal actions of Ms Davani, and that no racial discrimination was involved at all. The finding of racial discrimination was a 'legal technicality', resulting from errors made in preparing Brent's case for the tribunal, and this and procedural errors by other senior council officers in dealing with Ms Clarke's complaints of bullying and harassment against her by Ms Davani will be dealt with as part of Cllr. Pavey's review. As part of the announcement that Brent will not now be appealing against the tribunal's decision, you will, of course, need to be able to say that Ms Davani has resigned with immediate effect (or that she has been suspended while her alleged misconduct in this case is dealt with) and that Brent Council will ensure that Rosemarie Clarke will receive full compensation as soon as possible.

I hope you will find this email constructive and helpful. Once again, I am trying to help Brent, and help you, to do the right thing. My interference may be annoying, but if you are genuine about the need to 'allow residents to hold the Council to account' (see my email of 9 September, to which I am still awaiting your reply), you and your colleagues do need to consider the views of independent minds in the local community, especially when they put forward potentially sensible alternatives to the "in house" advice you have received.’  

I suspect that the reason you have issued your statement now may be connected with my efforts to establish whether the rumours of a "pay off" by Brent to Cara Davani, on her leaving the Council at the end of June, are true: and in the growing interest among Brent councillors to establish the justification for any such "pay off", if the interim Chief Executive or Chief Legal Officer have to confirm that there was some form of "pay off". I am copying this email to your Cabinet colleagues, and will forward a copy to my Ward councillors and to members of Brent's Scrutiny Committee, for their information. 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

Philip Grant's letter to councillors on this issue LINK

Butt on Davani case: The Council 'will not condone a witch-hunt against staff'

As you know Wembley Matters has carried a number of articles calling for Brent Council to provide details on whether the Council made a payment to Cara Davani, former Head of Human Resources on her resignation, and if so, the amount that was paid. This statement has been made by Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council.

Statement regarding employment tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke

 
"Much has been written and said about the Employment Tribunal of Rosemarie Clarke and Brent Council; a good deal of it has been inaccurate and unfair.

"The Council’s normal policy is not to comment on the detail of individual cases and for a considerable time we have held to this line. However, the time has come where the Council needs to set out the facts in the light of continued misrepresentation of the judgement. We do this not because of any desire to defend our reputation, but because of the corrosive affect of untruths on the morale of our workforce and our ability to move forward as an organisation.

"The tribunal found that Ms Clarke suffered ‘discrimination on the grounds of race, victimisation, and was constructively dismissed’. The case relates to events between March 2012 and August 2013. Most of the managers and officers who had any significant involvement with the case have left the council.

"The tribunal findings are complex and centre on grievances raised by Ms Clarke, Head of Learning and Development, against her manager, Ms Davani, Head of HR. Before these were heard, she was suspended by Mr Newby, Director of Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement, for another matter which, if upheld, in our view could have constituted gross misconduct. Ms Clarke resigned and left before the disciplinary and grievance matters had been fully determined.

"The council continued with both the disciplinary and grievance processes after she left. Ms Ledden, the Borough Solicitor, considered the gross misconduct case and concluded that she would have been dismissed. She also concluded that the grievance was without merit. The tribunal disagreed.

"The tribunal drew a direct comparison to another case of a white member of staff who was suspended on the grounds of gross misconduct and resigned, where the council did not continue to hear the case after he left. Fundamentally, it was this difference in the way the council acted that led to the finding of race discrimination. Different managers made the decisions in these cases, but the findings were against the council as the employer.

"Much has been made of the role of Cara Davani, in relation to the case. The fact is that the tribunal found fault in the decisions made by a number of managers and officers that collectively led to the finding against the council. We are sorry that mistakes were made, but we do not accept that all the staff concerned were therefore racist; indeed two of them were black managers. It was not what they did that led to the finding, but the difference between what they did and what other managers in the council did in similar circumstances. The Council will not condone a witch-hunt against staff, even those who make mistakes.

"The discrimination findings relied on what is known as the reverse burden of proof. If an organisation acts differently in two cases where the two employees happen to be of different race and cannot satisfactorily explain why, then it is deemed to have discriminated. The finding was against the Council as a whole.

"We are not legally allowed to discuss the terms of Cara Davani's departure. All staff are treated no more or less favourably than they are entitled to be treated in accordance with our contracts and in line with our employment procedures.

"In the three years since the start of matters in this case, Brent Council has made great strides in relation to its HR and Equalities practices. Most recently, we were judged to have reached the ‘Achieving’ level of the Equality Standard for Local Government.

"There are few councils in the country that are as proudly diverse as Brent, nor as committed to embedding equalities in our services and employment practices. We have used the failings in this case to learn, by commissioning a review of practices and through implementing an improvement plan.

"We stand on our record, as a service provider and employer, and hope that our staff and the public will judge us on this."

NOTE: The Watford Employment Tribunal Judgment can be found HERE