 |
| A previous Butt planning controversy |
|
Whether
it is because he is in thrall to the glossy world of developers or
because he suffers from a particularly bad case of Kilburnphobia, it is clear
that all is not well with Muhammed Butt.
Behind
the scenes the saga of Cllr Abdirazak Abdi’s removal from Brent Council
Planning Committee has been burning away, emerging now and then in the Letters column of the Kilburn Times, and has now reached a crucial point. It
is widely alleged that Abdi had been removed because he did not vote the ‘right
way’, that is the way the Leader expected members to vote, although members on
the Planning Committe cannot be whipped.
Cllr Abdi has submitted a Formal Complaint against Cllr Butt for breaching the
Members;’ Code of Conduct.
The complaint, which has been seen by members of the Labour Group on Brent
Council, sets out the background to the issue in detail and was sent to Debra
Norman, Brent Council’s Chief Legal Officer.
I
believe Cllr M Butt has breached the following Principles of Conduct in Public
Life.
1. Objectivity. Failure to consult on the
reasons why Cllr Abdi needed to be removed from the Planning Committee with
Labour Group officers/Steering group in accordance with Labour Group standing
orders.
2. Objectivity. The decision to remove Cllr
Abdi from the Planning Committee cannot be justified based on the reasons
provided by Cllr M Butt on 09 July 2018 and on the available information. Cllr Abdi
is one of only two members on the Planning Committee who was not serving on any
other committee (at the time). While 16 Councillors serve on 2 or more
committees,11 serve on 3 committees and 5 serve on 4 or more committees.
3. Objectivity/openness. The justification
given to Cllr Abdi by Cllr M Butt on 09 July, is not rational. If the purpose
was to make sure all councillors serve on committees, why remove Cllr Abdi from
the only committee he was on? (at the time).
4. Objectivity/Honesty/Openness. Cllr M
Butt did not disclose the full reasons for the removal of Cllr Abdi from the
Planning Committee (Please see emails on 09th/ 27th July
2018 from Cllr M Butt). This can be seen as misleading for not disclosing this
information at the time. Breach of the rules of natural justice, right to be
heard. Cllr Abdi was not given the evidence against him and even had Cllr
Butt’s allegations against him been justified, Cllr Abdi was not given an
opportunity to respond and challenge or develop in the role, before being
removed from the Planning Committee.
5. Leadership. Lack of leadership for
breaching the members’ Code of Conduct.
Muhammed
Butt initially stated that Cllr Abdi had been removed from Planning Committee
to make room for one of the new Willesden Green councillors elected in the
by-election after the full council elections. He said at the time that he
thought Abdi was on another committee.
After
protests Butt wrote to Cllr Abdi changing his grounds in a letter that manages
to be both insulting and patronising accusing his colleague of posturing and
pandering (to the public?) and threatening him with the Code of Conduct. Furthermore he brings
council officers into the dispute sugegsting that they had ‘grave concerns’
over Abdi’s conduct. At one point he appears to suggest that councillors have
to follow ‘prevailing expert guidance’ on planning issues. Does this mean the
Committee should always rubber-stamp officers’ recoemmendations?
Dear
Abdi,
I
thought it would be helpful to try and clear up the mess that we find ourselves
in.
Obviously we are at odds with regard to the recent change in your Planning
Committee membership status. As Leader I have a number of obligations. In this
instance I was caught between protecting this administration, and helping you,
as a new member of Labour Group, avoid public embarrassment. In appointing you
to Planning Committee I had hoped that you would take full advantage of the
many opportunities available to grow into the role. Instead, it quickly became
apparent that you were not prepared for the responsibility, nor willing to
accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice. Senior officers,
committee colleagues, and experienced observers alike all expressed grave
concerns about your conduct. In taking unsubstantiated positions on numerous
applications, counter to prevailing expert guidance, and in failing to properly
prepare for meetings, you were exposing yourself and this organisation to
justifiable claims of bias, predetermination, and incompetence, not to mention reputational
damage.
Your actions since have only served to reinforce my fears that you do not yet
understand your role. For example, in making internal Group matters public you
have broken party rules. And, in condoning your branch’s potentially libellous motion,
you have exposed yourself to civil action. However, given the circumstances, I
do not think it appropriate to take formal action. Indeed, I think it would be
wise to put this down to naivety and inexperience, albeit on the proviso that
any further such conduct will not be tolerated. Please understand that you have
a mandate from the people of Kilburn, are governed by the rules of our party,
and must adhere to this council’s code of conduct. As a result you have an
obligation to do more than posture or panda to a vocal if ill-informed
minority.
On reflection, I should have been explicit on the need for this change. I
realise that you were caught off-guard by the speed with which things occurred.
While the same cannot be said for your subsequent actions, I can see now that
your immediate reaction was understandably indignant. With the benefit of
hindsight I am sure we could have gotten to this point without incident and I
apologise for not having found another way forward. I do believe that you have what
it takes to be an effective local councillor and a valuable member of Labour
Group. You are clearly a keen and well intentioned advocate as evident in your
already impressive casework record, which is why it is such a shame that we
have started out on this poor footing.
I hope you understand that, as an official substitute, you have the opportunity
to redeem yourself on Planning Committee and moving forward any other
committee, and that you will now avail yourself of the support and advice
available. In the meantime, I’d be very grateful if you’d consider becoming a
member of Brent’s Pension Board. You’d be tasked with overseeing the management
of hundreds of millions of pounds of investments on behalf of this
organisation’s past, present, and future employees. While the board meets
quarterly, given the subject matter, I’m sure you can appreciate that a lot of
interesting and important work goes on in between. If that sounds like
something you’d be interested in, do please let me know.
In closing, if you ever want to talk anything through on this or any other
matter you will always find my door open.
Cllr
Abdirazak responded:
Thank
you for your email on 27 July 2018, explaining your decision on09 July 2018 to
remove me from the Planning Committee. I am writing to reapond to your
accusations and to again provide my view of why I was removed from the Planning
Committee.
I would
like to make several observations and comments on the allegations you make in
your email, ‘it quickly became apparent that you were not prepared for the
responsibility, nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and
advice. Senior officers, committee colleagues and experienced observers alike
all expressed grave concerns about your conduct. In taking unsubstantiated
positions on numerous applications, counter to prevailing expert guidance, and
in failing to properly prepare for meetings, you were exposing yourself and
this organisation to justifiable claims of bias, predetermination and
incompetence, not to mention reputational damage.’
Comments:
The timing and context of these new accusations, you are making are
very convenient, considering the following:
On 09
July 2018 when you first informed me of your decision, you said
there following, “we are making quite a few changes
on committees today right and er I am going to
make you an alternate on planning right, because I need to put Elliot
Chappell and three of the new councillors on committees. I am making
those changes right” I objected and I said “I am not happy” and you said
“You’re on scrutiny as well”. I said “No” and then I
followed up by saying “you do what you have to do and I will do
what I have to do but I am not happy with it and I am not going to accept it”.
You provided a clear and explicit reason for your decision to make a change on
the planning committee above, and you are now providing
a completely different reason without
any substantiating evidence, it seems like you are trying to
cover up the faults of your original decision to remove me from the planning
committee.
The
subsequent revised reason you
provided on your e-mail dated 27
July, explaining your decision to remove me from
the planning committee, was made after I made my accusations of the
possibility of political interference in the planning process. In an
e-mail sent to labour group members on 09 July 2018 at
17:44. This further explanation was provided after you had
already provided a reason (above) and after three weeks had elapsed from your
decision on 09 July 2018.
In
response to your accusation ‘nor willing to accept the multiple offers of
impartial help and advice’. I did not receive any offers of help, advice
or guidance as claimed. Further no one, either the Chair,
deputy Chair, committee members or officers, discussed or made
any concerns known to me about my decision-making or
preparedness on the planning committee. I
would appreciate any evidence or communications that you have in
this regard.
In
fact, on 16 May 2018 after the mandatory planning committee training
session I expressed concerns to the deputy Chair of the
planning committee, about you and Shama Tatler’s conduct. On 16
May 2018 We had a mandatory training session on planning. Please
see my account of the training session. ‘The session was led by
Alice Leicester Head of Planning and David Glover a senior planning Officer.
The Lead member for regeneration, Shama Tatler
also significantly contributed, and raised new points
while elaborating on the points in the training. She sat next to the
lead officers. I felt this was inappropriate as this training was
tainted by the political agenda of the leadership in the council. Half
way through the same training session Cllr Muhammad Butt came in and
sat down, next to the other members, he opened his tablet computer and began to
look at the tablet screen and type on his keyboard, throughout the session. He
was not there to learn, which was obvious to me from his actions but to
pressure members to fully accept and act on the information that was being
imparted on to us. I felt this was inappropriate as the planning committee
is independent and members were being influenced towards a certain
political agenda.
Every
decision I took on the planning committee, I made based on
material planning considerations, as the committee approved all these
decisions. I was not asked and neither did I provide explicit
reasons for voting in any particular way.
It
seems like you are making an implicit suggestion that officers’
recommendations have to always be accepted, in response to your suggestion.
What is the purpose of having a planning committee, if we always have to
approve the officers’ recommendations?
I would like to also make this further observation about
the lead member for regeneration Shama Tatler. On 25 June 2018,
we had a Planning committee members’ briefing from developers
looking to submit their planning applications. The lead member for
regeneration, Shama Tatler, sat in on part, of this briefing.
Her presence was not helpful as she was neither a committee member
nor a substitute and because it could dissuade members from asking
questions and being open to raise issues early on in the process, so the
developers can amend their applications.
In
short, I believe I was removed from the planning committee because I voted
against planning applications favoured by you and Shama Tatler and not for the
reasons currently claimed; lack of capability, ineptitude or lack of
preparedness. If these reasons provided were true, then there would be concrete
evidence that these issues, mentioned above, were brought to my attention, an
opportunity provided for me to refute or comment, and if needed a development
plan put in place. There is no evidence of any of these steps being taken and
this is a convenient reason provided to defend against the accusations I’ve
made.
