Philip Grant wondered if Wembley Matters readers could stand another posting on 'The Two Questions' when he submitted this guest blog. One of Brent Council's strategies is to continue to stonewall until complainants give up. Philip's persistence is admirable and should be supported.
Email from Fiona Alderman, sent at around 10pm on Wednesday 12 August 2015:-
Email from Philip Grant, sent at around 5.30pm on Thursday 13 August 2015:-
Some “Wembley Matters” readers have been following the saga of my two questions to Christine Gilbert about the probable “pay off” by Brent Council to its former Director of HR, Cara Davani, and the explanations given as to why she cannot answer them. This is the latest round. Anyone who wishes to see the earlier rounds can find them at LINKandLINK and LINK .
If you are interested enough to read the exchange of emails below, I would welcome your comments. Are the reasons given by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer reasonable? Even if you think they are not, do you feel that I should give up now, and let those at the top of the Council get away with what appears to be a cover-up? Or do you support my efforts to get to the bottom of this matter? If the latter, then please show your support, not just by adding a comment below, but by emailing your local councillors to say that Brent must answer Philip Grant’s two questions, and explain why it believes that any “pay off” to Cara Davani is justified, and not a misuse of funds that the Council should be spending instead on services for local people. Thank you.
Email from Fiona Alderman, sent at around 10pm on Wednesday 12 August 2015:-
Dear Mr GrantI am replying to your recent correspondence to the Chief Executive and myself.It is accepted that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.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 will provide a copy of this response to Councillors Warren and Kansagra.RegardsFiona AldermanChief Legal Officer
Email from Philip Grant, sent at around 5.30pm on Thursday 13 August 2015:-
Dear Ms Alderman,
Further to my acknowledgement of the email which you sent me yesterday evening, I am now writing to reply to the latest reasons you have given for Brent Council not answering the two questions which I put to Christine Gilbert on 9 July 2015.
My questions were raised in the context of serious concerns which many local people, including Council staff, expressed when rumours emerged two months ago that Cara Davani was to receive a “pay off” from Brent. The Council had announced that she was leaving at the end of June, to take a “career break”, so there appeared to be no reason why she should receive any further financial benefit. She was already a controversial figure, who many thought should have resigned when her actions against Rosemarie Clarke in 2013 became public knowledge, through the publication in September 2014 of the Employment Tribunal judgement. It seemed inexplicable that Brent appeared to have taken no disciplinary action against her then for gross misconduct.
The possibility that Cara Davani might also be “rewarded” when she finally did leave the Council generated those serious concerns, and I sought answers from Christine Gilbert to find out whether the rumours were true, and if so, what was the justification for any such “pay off”. Those are still the matters which need to be resolved, and they will not be resolved by the Council continuing to be evasive over providing the answers. I realise that you are probably only carrying out the wishes of those above you in trying to defend that prevarication, and I will explain now why the reasons you have given do not stand up, by reference to the questions that I still believe Brent must answer.
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.
You have said:
‘It is accepted that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, information relating to individuals can be disclosed if it is necessary and reasonable to do so and there is an overriding public interest justification. However, in respect of employment matters, individual members of staff have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence and it is not appropriate for the Council to answer your enquiry.’
It is already in the public domain that Cara Davani, former Director of HR and Administration, left the Council at the end of June 2015, and that there was an agreement with her, even though ‘the council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure’, which are presumably contained in that agreement. By simply answering “yes” or “no” to my question 1. above, the Council would not be breaching any ‘reasonable expectation of privacy and confidence’ that Ms Davani might have, especially given the context of this matter as outlined above (which I believe does provide ‘an overriding public interest justification’).
As I have said before, to Christine Gilbert, if the honest answer to question 1 is “yes” (i.e. that there was no financial payment other than her normal salary up to 30 June 2015), that is the end of that matter. However, if the answer is “no”, then Ms Gilbert does need to explain what justification there is for having made an additional payment (even if the amount of any such payment can only be given, in confidence, to those Council staff and councillors who need to know it). If the Council cannot show that there is a valid justification for any additional payment to Ms Davani, then such a payment could be a misuse of Council funds, and should be open to public challenge. That consideration must surely override the “privacy” of a person who may have received such a payment.
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.
I have already dealt with your ‘expectation of privacy and confidence’ point above, but you also say:
‘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 thought that I had already covered this point in my email to you and Christine Gilbert on 3 August, making clear that the fact that the remedies hearing has not yet been finalised does not prevent Ms Gilbert from answering my second question. However, I will spell it out again here.
If the Council has not agreed, and will not agree (as it should not, for the reasons below), to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “yes”, and that is the end of the matter.
If the Council has agreed to fund all or any part of any award which the Tribunal may make against Ms Davani personally, then the answer is “no”. The question is not asking for any amounts, so it does not matter that those are ‘not yet determined’.
I accept that the Tribunal has not yet made any awards in this case, but given its findings in favour of Rosemarie Clarke in the judgement of September 2014, it is likely to make awards at the remedies hearing. It may decide to make its awards solely against the first respondent, the London Borough of Brent, the employer. However, as Cara Davani is a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal proceedings, it is open to the Tribunal to make an award against her personally. If it does that, it will be doing so on the basis of its findings of fact, after reading and hearing detailed evidence.
In these circumstances, I believe that it would be wrong, and a misuse of Council funds, if Brent were to pay any award made against Ms Davani personally. That is why it is important that my second question is answered, and answered now, so that if the honest answer is “no” Ms Gilbert can explain why she, or whoever on behalf of the Council agreed such an arrangement, considers that it is justified for Brent to pay any such awardI am sure that the Tribunal will only make an award against Ms Davani personally, if it does make such an award, if it believes that award reflects her own liability on the facts of the case, and not that of the Council. Surely it is right that councillors and the public should be able to challenge any possible misuse of Council funds. To conceal the facts, when they have been openly requested, in a way that does not require the Council to breach its secrecy agreement with Ms Davani over the details, just as surely cannot be right.
I am copying this email to Cllr, Kansagra and Cllr. Warren, and will forward a copy to the other councillors who were copied into my previous correspondence with Ms Gilbert on this matter. I will also make it publicly available, as I informed you this morning.
In conclusion, I hope that you will now provide the two “yes” or “no” answers to my two questions. If you do not feel you can do so in Ms Gilbert’s absence, please confirm that you will advise her to provide the answers on her return from annual leave, and let me know, please, when that is expected to be. Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.