The Pavey Review which was published last week has this key sentence:

0. It is important to note that the review was not a review of our HR department. It is about the role each person has to play in making Brent Council the best possible place to work. There are clear recommendations in relation to employment policies and practice, and these require the action of the entire organisation and crucially managers at all levels.
   

This limitation is why Brent Green Party and others called for an independent investigation into Brent Council, not only in the racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal that an Employment Tribunal found against first respondent Brent Council and second respondent Cara Davani, but into the previous working connections of senior staff. The latest example of the latter is the appointment of Lorraine Langham as Brent's Chief Operating Officer who like Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani previously worked for both Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council. LINK

In any other organisation disciplinary action would have been taken against a manager found guilty of such conduct. Muhammed Butt, when challenged by members of staff on the issue at Brent Connects said the council had to follow 'due process' and make an Appeal.

Some Councillors suggested to me that disciplinary action could only take place when the Appeal process had been exhausted. A Judge found that the Council had no grounds for an Appeal but still no action was taken. Two legitimate opportunities to lance the boil missed.

Some have claimed that disciplinary action in itself would amount to victimisation or even a 'witch hunt',  or would be to succomb to political pressure. This is  a red herring. The Council owes a duty of care towards its employees and this includes ensuring that they are treated fairly in their day to day employment regardless of race, gender etc. Brent Council should have confidence that their own disciplinary procedures are robust enough to withstand such pressures.

Now the Council is in the position of having someone in charge of HR who has been found guilty of the above offences but is nevertheless in charge of recruitment and redundancies policies. Long term mprovements in processes and procedures does not address immediate issue.

Michael Pavey has done a thorough job within his limited remit, consulting widely with staff and apparently winning their confidence. One glaring ommission is consulting with the staff who have left the Council and examining any gagging clauses that were imposed. They, after all, are possible victims of poor employment and practice.

However, given the comments I have received on this blog regarding working conditions at Brent Council (many unpublished so as not to reveal identity or due to gagging clauses) as well as emails and telephone calls, soemtimes distraught,  the following comment seems emollient:

This review finds that Brent is generally a happy and inclusive place to work. But there is plenty we can do better.

Although Cllr Pavey recognises that Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) statistics in Brent are better than some other London local authorities, he says they are far from satisfactory.  What is missing from his report is the connection between those statistics and the operation of the HR department (Proportion of BAME employees in Brent is 62%, Female employees 65%):

Both show higher proportions in the lower grade and I assume that BAME and Female would be higher still at tScale 3 to P2, and lower at the Hay grade.

Im terms of HR practice the reasons for leaving are also important and for both BAME and Females dismissals are higher (second column)

These are perhaps some of the most important recommendations:

Finding: Generally, feedback from staff themselves suggests that practice is good; however, improvements can and should be made to employee management practice to achieve a more collaborative and inclusive culture. 


Engagement with staff suggests inconsistent application of policies and procedures, including as regards flexible working. There has clearly been great progress in implementing good management practice, but the Council should also seek to ensure that internal communication explain expected practice, underpinned by a clear explication of staff and manager competencies and behaviours.

·      At present, there are few reported incidents of bullying and harassment. The Council has an emphasis on informal resolution: according to the LGA this represents good practice. Consideration should be given to ensuring consistency, support and follow up within the informal resolution framework. 


·      The Council lacks a systematic Council-wide approach to learning from HR and legal processes when complaints are raised; whilst this is not uncommon, we have an opportunity to make improvements. In addition, this may give rise to inconsistent management responses. Thus, though HR takes the lead, individual managers are responsible for learning from ETs and grievances, and reviews take place with HR and within departments. Improvements should be made in terms of cross-organisational learning, peer review and Council-wide improvements. 


·      The Code of Conduct does not at present adequately articulate the behaviours and practice expected of managers and staff. Such behaviours should be clearly articulated, communicated and reflected in: 


·      recruitment and selection processes


·      ongoing team and line management

·      
appraisal processes

·      learning development processes and interventions.

Addressing this presents an opportunity to emphasise the significant priority the Council attaches to valuing diversity.

·      Evaluation of practice and understanding of staff experience should be regular and Council-wide. 


·      Internal communications should be strengthened to become a two-way flow of information. It is critical for senior management to be able to communicate values and good practice to the wider workforce. But it is equally important that communications enables the wider workforce to articulate their experiences to senior management. In two staff focus groups, more than half had not seen a copy of their service or team plan and participants suggested that improvements could be made to internal communications, including the ability for greater staff engagement and management visibility, for example through senior managers attending team meetings. This is increasingly important given the scale and pace of change. Managers themselves need to be supported to communicate effectively, but must also play the key role in staff engagement. Given the current and future constraints on funding, it is important that central advice and strategy is complemented by good practice within departments. 


On 3 October 2011 the government announced a further one-off grant, for 2012-13 only, of £2.6m predicated on the basis that the council does not increase council tax for 2012-13. Each 1% in Council tax equates to approximately £1m of Council spending and members should note that the failure to increase Council tax over a number of years will erode the Council’s underlying revenue position in the longer term.

The [Heaphy] report said that a rise of 2.5% in council tax would close the budget gap as follows:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

In other words a rise of 2.5% in council tax this year would result in a net gain when the loss of the £2.5m grant is taken into consideration. Some councils are considering this option and some Labour councillors in Brent thought it worthy of debate. However that option appears to have been ruled out in advance of both consultation and decision making.

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

Reflecting on Muhammed Butt's declaration yesterday that there were 'no plans to change course' on freezing council tax for the 2014-15 budget, I wonder what his plans are for 2015-16. In October the Council forecast a deficit for that year of  £34m (see below) a huge amount that on the council's own reckoning will put essential services at risk.

As political parties are deciding their manifestos for the May local elections surely they should be saying something about this crisis waiting for them in their first year of office.

In that respect a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on increasing council tax would make sense. Rank and file Labour party members and the wider public could than have a say and it could provide a launch pad for similar moves by other local authorities.  I do not think increases in council tax are the answer to the huge cuts in local authority funding, that of course requires the restoration of adequate funding, but a national debate post May 2014 leading up to the General Election in 2015 could feed into that demand. It will certainly put the future of local government on the General Election agenda.

‘A heartfelt welcome back to Lorraine Langham, newly-appointed £140k ‘chief operating officer’ at the London borough of Brent. Ms Langham made frequent appearances in Rotten Boroughs in the Noughties, thanks to the umbilical link she appeared to have with her chum Christine Gilbert, wife of disgraced former Labour minister Tony ‘Second Home’ McNulty.

In the early Noughties, when Gilbert was chief executive of Tower Hamlets council, Langham was its communications supremo. Then in 2006, Gilbert became the boss of Ofsted and Langham was appointed director of corporate services. Now Lorraine has joined senior management at Brent following a ‘restructuring’ overseen by (amazing coincidence) the council’s ‘interim’ chief executive…….Christine Gilbert.   Small world!’ 

A council tax increase of 1.99% would provide £1.7m (gross) and £0.7m (minus the freeze grant) in each year. 

Therefore the council's ongoing resources would be £1.4m higher after two years of council tax increases. This assumes the freeze grant would continue to be added as permanent funding by the government in subsequent years (which is the current arrangement).

A 1.99% increase would be equal to a £21 increase for Band D residents.

I can confirm that the information requested is held by Brent Council. I have detailed  below the information that is being released to you.

Funds received are either spent, commissioned (committed to a project for futue
spend) or uncommissioned (not yet committed to a project). 

Total funds received under S106 agreements with Hyde Housing in the Stonebridge  Estate are £315,766.36 of which £135,000 has been commissioned to fund
expansion of Stonebridge Primary School. The remainder is uncommissioned.  

Total funds received under S106 agreements with Quintain Estates in Wembley are  £749,715.63 of which spent and £353.266.68 commissioned to the following
projects: 

£116,199.19 spent on provision of public lavatory on Wembley Hill Road
£116,199.18 spent on improvements to Wembley Central Station
£130,634.48 spent and £213,408.22 commissioned to local employment & training  programmes
£14,627.99 spent and £372.01 commissioned to tree planting in vicinity of York
House
£10,000 commissioned to fund energy efficient street lights in the borough
£50,000 commissioned to fund expansion of Preston Park Primary School
£37,232.26 commissioned to fund improvements to King Edwards Park
£17,254.19 commissioned to fund public realm improvements at junction of
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road
£25,000 commissioned to fund highway improvements to junctions along Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road 

·      Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council

·      There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness which has cemented the council’s failures.

·      Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion

·      The council is currently incapable of tackling its weaknesses, without a sustained intervention.

·      The council lacks political leadership.

·      It is directionless and is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be, and how it will get there.

·      It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members to properly represent the interests of local people and businesses.

·      Some councillors, have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or their positions of responsibility. For example the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistle-blowers.

·      It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.

·      Management is ineffective.

·      There is no cohesive senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive.

·      There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around.

·      There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in Children’s Services.

Inspectors saw regular reports to the Cabinet and Scrutiny committees, but not the effective challenge we would expect from elected Members. The notion of challenge has been misunderstood and misinterpreted as bullish questioning. Challenge means setting aspirational targets, knowing how far to stretch the organisation, asking searching questions, drilling down into information and data, ensuring targets are kept to and agreed actions implemented. It also means recognising organisational inertia and doing something about it; identifying when people are struggling, finding out why and getting alongside them, overcoming barriers and working out solutions.P65

One illustration of this disconnection between vision, plans and practice is the Council’s equalities plan and single equality scheme. The documents are clear,aspirational and include a summary of good practice. However, we found that this was not rooted in the day-to-day experience of staff. We set these matters out i more detail elsewhere in considering political correctness and race. The point here is  that whilst plans and policies look appropriate, or even good, they bear little relationship to what inspectors found at the frontline. (p70)

Inspectors were told that  in Children’s Services only “60-80% of staff are having Performance Reviews, with HR spot checking more than anything”. Inspectors did not find this to be at all adequate. We would expect the vast majority of staff, with few exceptions, to be having performance reviews so they know what is expected of  them and how their work contributes to the delivery of the Council’s plans. Inspectors concluded that some staff did not understand the Council’s vision; a number were clearly confused about what was expected of them and this hampered their performance in terms of day to-day service delivery (p70)

However, it is not clear how effective it has been in holding Cabinet Members and senior officers to account for their individual performance and decision-making  Inspectors could not find much evidence of how scrutiny had changed practice or policy making. P75

Where Councillors have scrutinised other agencies, eg aspects of health, they have been more effective and robust. However, not enough Members really know how to get underneath information presented by officers, and the organisation has not properly resourced and facilitated effective scrutiny. It was generally acknowledged that the scrutiny team was small and disconnected from the Senior Leadership Team.  P77

Inspectors concluded that overview and scrutiny had been deliberately weakened and under-valued. The structures and processes look superficially adequate, but the  culture has been one where challenge and scrutiny were not welcome. P76

However, Inspectors found that the overall approach to finance planning was not based on a clear and political strategic vision. The Improvement Board recognises this and is working to develop one. In the absence of this vision, the budget process has been led by finance. All departments were asked to find a quota of savings, with some protection for frontline services. This approach has delivered the bottom line, but with serious consequences. For example, some services no longer have the capacity to function effectively. We were particularly concerned about the level of funding for central regulatory functions and those which will drive transformation, like legal services, organisational development, strategy, and resources to ensure community cohesion. P83

Generally, inspectors found the Council too willing to take the path of least resistance rather than ensuring it did the right thing for individuals or the organisation as a whole. We have concluded that whilst the Council has followed its own procedures, these have not always ensured that it has taken, and continues to take, appropriate action against staff potentially guilty of gross misconduct. P130

Settlements can leave issues unresolved in the case of grievances. For example, one staff member was offered severance when she complained of being bullied. There were counter claims against her by others saying she was a bully. Because the case was not properly investigated, it is unclear whether the matter was resolved by the complainant’s departure. Where severance is used instead of disciplinary action procedures being followed through, it sends the wrong message to the workforce and managers. It may not be an appropriate use of public funds, particularly where dismissal could have occurred if due process had been followed. This was acknowledged by the Council. P132

Grievance cases were too frequently dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. In two cases where this had occurred, Inspectors considered there was clearly some evidence of poor conduct by managers. In another case, Inspectors noted that the disciplinary process appeared to have been concluded without seeking evidence from all third party witnesses. 

At times, little effort appeared to have been put into seriously exploring issues raised through grievances. For example, a complaint about potential institutionalised racism was apparently dismissed without investigation on the basis that it was ‘unsuitable for a grievance process’. We make no comment on the merit of this particular case, except that it should have been properly looked into. P133

Inspectors have concluded that RMBC goes to some lengths to cover up information, and silence whistle-blowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so for others.

“I’m just worried about reprisals of a personal nature.” (A councillor)

“We’ve all been made aware of the (whistle blowing) procedure,but no-one dares ever use it, because if they did, eventually it would come back to bite them in the backside and they would be bullied out of the organisation”. (A whistle-blower P134)

Staff in RMBC have spoken to Inspectors of being afraid to speak out, told to keep

quiet, instructed to cover up, and of a culture where “if you want to keep your job,

you keep your head down and your mouth shut.” 

A significant number of people we interviewed were clearly afraid of what might happen to them if they spoke out. 

Inspectors considered detailed evidence in three specific cases where people who blew the whistle felt they were marginalised, bullied, harassed and victimised as a result. 

In two cases, whistle-blowers claimed they were deliberately restructured out, one

from the Council and the other from a provider working closely with the Council

under a contract. In a third case, following a similar pattern of marginalisation the

person left. Inspectors recognise that sometimes whistle-blowers may have other agendas and those who approach inspections can be aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. We have borne this in mind when reviewing the cases presented to us and have nevertheless formed a view that in these specific cases there was sufficient truth in the matters raised to be a cause of public concern.

I spoke at the Green Party Conference in 2013, and I was impressed with the ideas that were being put forward. The ideas of the Greens resonated with a lot of my beliefs. Obviously the Greens commitment to bring railways back into public hands struck a chord, but also policies to invest in the NHS, build social housing, institute higher taxes for those who can afford it, and put forward progressive policies on immigration informed my decision to stand.

We’re delighted to announce Peter as our candidate in Redcar. Voters there, like their counterparts across the UK, are sick and tired of the business as usual politics offered by the establishment parties. We’re giving them a chance to vote for someone who will defend our NHS, campaign for publically owned railways and push for decent affordable housing for everyone who needs it.

A Valentine's Day from Stonebridge chidlren to Brent Council

Dear Glynis,

It was unfortunate that all efforts to keep our cherished Adventure playground open was unsuccessful with the decision of withdrawal of the funding. It will be a devastating news to the Stonebridge community and environs who use this facility.

Regarding your concerns and some information you requested,I'll email you later today for those request and also enquire if their will be room for time to sort out the Staff that work in the Adventure playground instead of March 31st deadline.

Kind regards,
Ernest
Cllr. Ernest Ezeajughi
Stonebridge Ward

We should not accept that funding is to be stopped until we have exhausted all campaigning opportunities and lobbied all councillors, MPs, candates etc Exactly as you have been doing so well. The Cabinet does not offically decide its recommendations until February 23rd and then they have to be approved by Full Council on March 2nd. Muhammed Butt may have decided funding will cease but are we saying that the rest of the process is therefore meaningless? It doesn't say much for local democracy if so. Let's not give up yet - look at the Kilburn Times fron page today.

Without youth services it's far too easy for young people to be swayed by peer pressure and get involved with gangs and go down the criminality route, so the figure will rise.

IT IS NOT OVER We will fight on and even harder for JUSTICE . The gloves are off now and we at Bridge know how to fight and WIN There are at least three rounds to go .Come on everyone lets finish the job and finish it well We are not some walkover We stand our ground and always will . Bless all our supporters .

The cuts recommended to the Cabinet have now been published LINK. As expected the gap between the cuts of £54m required over two years and the £60m actually tabled during the consultation enables the Council to claim to have saved some services.

Despite recent moves by some backbench councillors to propose a rise in Council Tax of 1.99% to save some services, Council Tax is frozen for the 6th year. The councillors' move may have been too late to meet statutory deadlines.

The Budget Report itself does not refer to the petition from Stonebridge Adventure Playground in detail or, as far as I can see on first perusal, does not mention the number of signatories, and instead the future of its funding is dealt with in a separate report which ties the funding into the issue of the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School, which serves to complicate the matter.

It refers to alternative provision with a complete lack  od evidence or detail and it is hard to see how they could make up for what the playground provides (from their report):

The SAP enables children and young people to take part in a range of outdoor and indoor play experiences. Outdoor activities at the SAP include: outdoor adventure play, go-karting, gardening, and sports.

Indoor activities at the SAP include: games, arts and crafts, a ball pond, Wii games, and cooking. Other linked activities include trips, access and use of a narrow boat.

The scheduled opening hours are:

• Monday – Friday term-time, 2-7pm;

• Saturdays, 11am-4pm;

• School holidays (summer, Christmas, Easter, and during the three School half-term breaks), 7am-6pm.

Some of the services which appear in the above list as 'not agreed' have other actions which will still impact on services.  Despite concersn about the capacity of the voluntart sector to take over Council functions this is a strategy adopted by the Council.

For example both CYP16 (Closing 10 children's centres) and CYP17 (Closing youth services) have agreed options (CYP1 and CYP3) that will out-source them to the voluntary sector and have the potential to reduce provision by the back door.

The proposal to transfer the management of the library services to a trust (ENS18) is to go ahead.

Energy Solutions will be expected to become self-financing but will receive a cushioning grant of £50,000 for 2015-16  during the transition,

It is worth looking at the rather contradictory statements in the Cabinet report on supporting people, that appear to doubt the capacity of the voluntary sector to provide the service but nonetheless recommend the cuts:

Proposal R&G27a would reduce the supporting people budget by £1m in 2016/17. This would be in addition to proposal R&G27, which would reduce the budget by £1.8m over two years. The current budget is £7.1m.

6.75    This additional saving would mean a significant reduction or selective cessation of services to provide supported housing and floating support of vulnerable individuals and families to assist them to maximise their independence and prevent homelessness. The service provides support to individuals with mental health needs, homeless families, ex-offenders, victims of domestic violence, young people at risk and isolated older people.

6.76    However, these services are not statutory requirements. There may be potential for VCS organisations to take on a greater burden of support for these client groups but it is very doubtful that there is capacity to do so to the extent implied by this saving in addition o the significant savings identified elsewhere in this area.

6.77    Supporting People services is a catch-all term for a variety of housing support services aimed at people who do not meet the council’s eligibility threshold for social care services. The services provided are intended to prevent clients developing greater caneeds by addressing housing issues. No significant comment has been received from the general public on this proposal, although  this may be because the term ‘supporting people’ is not well understood

6.78    Taking all of this into account leading Members have requested that officers prepare the budget on the basis that proposals R&G27 and R&G27a are agreed