WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
 |
| The view from the pavement outside Grunwick 40 years ago |
Dear James ,Here is part two of my concerns please ensure the co-opted member are given a copy. Also if you are not the person or committee who deals with these issues please pass them on to the CEO with the questions as a FOI .(A) Committee attendanceJames as a member of the Labour group you are probably aware that I have been left off committees for the past two years. You maybe also be aware that I won an election to be on scrutiny committee but was then removed and was not placed on any committee whatsoever this year. This is in-spite of the fact that attendance at committee meetings is very low and the recommendation from the Penn report concerning the death of CIIr Oladapo (Tayo) said under 2.What, if any, improvements the Council should implement"(i)consideration should be given as to whether every member of the Council should sit on a sub- committee or committee as well as Full Council to improve the potential for attendance and thereby avoid the possibility of breaching the six months rule. This could also obviate the current practice of using the substitution arrangements to enable members to avoid breaching the six months rule".I know you have witnessed the exchange of emails between the Labour Party chief whip Cllr Kabir and myself about this issue of me being removed from all committees. Therefore you can imagine my surprise when just before full council meeting on last Monday! Cllr Kabir told me that she had put me on the Licensing committee replacing another councillor, without asking my permission or my availability .I informed Cllr Kabir that I would not stand as I believe it was just cover-up to hide the fact a councillor had moved out of Brent sometime previous and she was not willing to attend any more meetings than the bare minimum. I also told Cllr Kabir I was not good enough for the leadership to nominate me for any committee meetings in May, therefore what had changed by September.I was at the time and subsequently concerned that the Labour leadership are not being transparent to residents that I am being brought into a deception without my knowledge. Also in the Penn report it said "consideration should be given to the way in which ‘apologies for absence’ are managed. Currently there is no requirement for the member concerned to tender their apologies directly or personally as these can be tendered on their behalf by another member or an officer". I am concerned that the apologies are being managed by the Chief whip in a blanket fashion and do not relate absences due to illness or any other reason , just the unwillingness of a councillor to travel to Brent.I wonder if under standards you would be willing to start an investigation into(1) When did the councillor leave Brent?(2) Was the CEO and the Head of Legal informed ?(3) If not why not ?(4) Did the CEO and HOL give any advice?(B) HospitalityAs you know there has been a successful planning application for Tottenham Hotspurs to play at Wembley , many people suggested Tottenham got a good deal and many local Cllrs objected to the conditions. I have been informed by a member of the public both the Leader of the council Cllr Butt and lead member for Regeneration and planning Cllr Tatler have received hospitality from Tottenham since the planning permission was granted. Whereas I have some understanding that we need to keep relations open with the Wembley and their tenant Tottenham, However I do not understand why the lead member for planning should participate in hospitality as this could seemingly bring the planning system into disrepute , therefore I ask you to ensure both these councillors and any others who have participated in Hospitality declare the reasons why they were offered hospitality and did they check it with the CEO,before excepting also if you could enquire(1) How many tickets were received and value.(2) Who attended the matches with them.(3) Reason for the hospitality ( sometimes its OK to look at an issue of say crowd control ,traffic management, or a new street cleansing practise. However receiving hospitality should not just be for a "Jolly Boys outing@ for them and their family that is not acceptable)(4) Can you also enquire whether any other Councillors , Officers or relative have received hospitally from Tottenham or Wembley stadium.In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as ' When you dance with a developer, its always to their tune". I hope you see that a declaration alone without reason is not enough, what we must consider is what the average man /women in the street would think, that is why I ask you to look at the issue.
Dear James ,
I was not informed of this meeting and only read about it on Wembley Matter on the 22nd September. No doubt the CEO and the head of legal will say I was told six months ago this would be referred to the next meeting, however it is up to you to decide, whether it would be reasonable for CEO to inform me of the date of that meeting once it has been fixed.
Anyway I am unable to attend tonight for personal reasons. Can you pass this email on to the co-oped members.
Let me first point out there is no independent input into the report and I refused to accept that officers can come to a decision on selective emails and therefore I refuse to co-operate unless someone who was not on the officers “payroll” was involved.
Let me get things right and state why I believe the CEO was wrong to leave Brent to sit on operation Gold. I believe operation GOLD, was a complete waste of time,it's not my opinion it's the opinion of many people.I strongly believe that quangos very seldom solve problems and I believe I have a right to voice that, as we live in a democracy.
In the aftermath of the disaster I believe the Ministers were wrong to set up a quangos of CEOs as many of the victims believed senior officers were responsible for not listening to them. What was needed were operation teams with hands on experience of logistics and how to deal with problems that would arise from Re -Housing, Social Services , Bereavement counselling, Food distribution etc. CEO could play a role by nominating their best officers and put them into the field with resources.The ministers view that we need more Chiefs instead of Indians was proven wrong.
The following day I went down to South Kilburn and identified two blocks I believe were of concern, George and Swift House and raised it with the CEO during the next few days neither the CEO, the lead member for housing Cllr Harbi, the lead member for Regeneration Cllr Tatler appeared in South Kilburn, even though they were aware of SK close proximity to Grenfell and the fabric of the buildings was similar.
The officers on site did a sterling job on ensuring all survey were carried out.I also recognised that the Leader and Deputy Leader and the MP Tulip Siddiq (who chaired a very well received meeting) turned up to reassure residents.
However the CEO's decision not to support a emergency meeting was in my opinion wrong. It was clear the meeting may have been difficult as many resident needed to vent their anger and frustration.
The CEO had a number of options of how to respond to the request from the 5 Councillors,Cllr Chan and Cllr Hector requested a meeting via all councillor email which included the Mayor.
She could have supported the meeting and assist the members who were calling for a meeting to get passed, or to ignore those members of the council and use the bureaucratic tactics to ensure it did not take place. The CEO then compounded the issue saying a meeting would take place but the residents would be barred and the meeting would last no -longer than a ½ hour.I believe the later decision was the worst decisionand an affront to the democratic process
I believe the CEO was wrong so I am releasing some of the private emails LINK between the CEO and myself and other officers,which may explain what was going on at the time,means from the bottom-up.
I do have respect for the CEO and I believe she is very competent, however she is not infallible and on this occasion I believe she made a mistake on this occasion.
Overall I believe Brent officers did well following the Grenfell disaster. Therefore I think the CEO should concentrate on where we agree not where we disagree.
I would ask committee members to refer the report back to allow independent input into the report.
I have other things I wish to raise with the standards which I will send you later to today before the meeting .
