Regular reader will know about the issues around democracy and Brent Council (refresher course: LINK ) and these came to a ahead wsith the Labour landslide with proposals to limit questions to the Cabinet and have just one 'super' Scrutiny Committee. At the same time Muhammed Butt tried to get a change in rules which would have meant the Labour leadership only being contested every four years.
A concession made to the public was that they would be allowed to address full Council.
On Friday August 29th Brent Council sent out this tweet: (Screen grab)
![]()
Clear enough you might think and having posted about the opportunity on this blog and on Facebook I sent in a request on Monday morning to have a deputation on the issue of the appointment of a Permanent Chief Executive.
The previous adminstration had accepted a report from Fional Ledden (Chief Legal Officer) to continue with Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert's acting appointment until after the May 2014 local elections. According to Ledden this was in order to ensure a smooth transfer to the Civic Centre, continuity during the election and because market conditions were not right for recruitment.
The then Liberal Democrat opposition had opposed this and called for an open and transparent recruitment process. LINK
I was surprised to receive a belated response from Fiona Ledden refusing my request as it had not been received by the 'deadline of August 29th'.
I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):
I am used to Fiona Ledden's method when challenged, she basically seeks to grind you down and then eventually close down any correspondence. There are several guest blogs on Wembley Matters that testify to this method.
Undaunted I replied again this morning:
Dear Ms Ledden,
A concession made to the public was that they would be allowed to address full Council.
On Friday August 29th Brent Council sent out this tweet: (Screen grab)
The previous adminstration had accepted a report from Fional Ledden (Chief Legal Officer) to continue with Acting Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert's acting appointment until after the May 2014 local elections. According to Ledden this was in order to ensure a smooth transfer to the Civic Centre, continuity during the election and because market conditions were not right for recruitment.
The then Liberal Democrat opposition had opposed this and called for an open and transparent recruitment process. LINK
I was surprised to receive a belated response from Fiona Ledden refusing my request as it had not been received by the 'deadline of August 29th'.
I replied (attaching the screen grab of the Tweet):
Thank you for your letter informing me that I cannot have a deputation to Full Council because my email was sent on Monday September 1st and the deadline was Friday August 29th.
I sent my email in response to a Tweet from Brent Council which quite clearly stated that the deadline was Noon on Monday September 1st. The Tweet was sent out by the Council on August 29th.I received the following letter from Fiona Ledden in response:
I therefore repeat my request to speak to full Council on the issue of appointing a Permanent Chief Executive.
Thank you for your email in response to my letter.
Please accept our apologies for the confusion. The Tweet you refer to was published in error and this is something I shall follow up.Brent Council has about 8,000 followers, some of whom will have retweeted the notice, so that is some error!
I refer you to Standing Order 39 in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution “Any person wishing to make a deputation shall give written notice to the Director of Legal and Procurement of the title and summary of the content of the deputation not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting”. The deadline for deputations was 29 August 2014.
As stated in my original response to your email, you will receive a written response to your question in due course.
I am used to Fiona Ledden's method when challenged, she basically seeks to grind you down and then eventually close down any correspondence. There are several guest blogs on Wembley Matters that testify to this method.
Undaunted I replied again this morning:
Dear Ms Ledden,
I am afraid that i am not satisfied with your response. An invitation that went out to almost 8,000 followers of Brent Council on Twitter, and was then further distributed by some of them, cannot simply be dismissed as an 'error'.You may not be surprised to learn that I have had no reply.
Furthermore even the 5 day's notice in Standing Orders does not say '5 working days'. Even if we take that to be what is meant, a deadline of Noon on Monday would give 5-1/2 days between the deadline and the evening meeting on September 8th. That is Monday afternoon, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and the following Monday.
I therefore ask you to reconsider my request to speak as a delegation to the Full Council on September 8th on the issue of appointment of a permanent Chief Executive.
If Muhammed Butt and his Cabinet were genuine in their commitment to give the public a voice in representation and decision making, it seems that their desires are being thwarted.
In the Standing Orders approved by the Council at their first meeting Fiona Ledden granted some fairly draconian powers over selecting delegations to speak at full Council meetings. No one from any party questioned these powers although they were commented on here:
Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.
So if I complain the issue will get caught up in the complaints procedure and therefore cannot be raised by me or anyone else. If I make a fuss then it could be labelled vexatious. And if I suggest that perhaps something is being hidden or avoided, or someone being protected, then that could be defamatory.
If all else fails then Ms Ledden can refuse the deputation on the the grounds that it is inappropriate for 'any other reason'.
Regular readers will remember that Ms Ledden wrote to Wembley Matters'requring' us to remove documentation about the Audit and Investigation team's report on allegations against Brent's Acting Head of Human Resources LINK We refused to comply on grounds of public interest.
Is there any councillor out there who will stand up and question this nonsense?
If all else fails then Ms Ledden can refuse the deputation on the the grounds that it is inappropriate for 'any other reason'.
Regular readers will remember that Ms Ledden wrote to Wembley Matters'requring' us to remove documentation about the Audit and Investigation team's report on allegations against Brent's Acting Head of Human Resources LINK We refused to comply on grounds of public interest.
Is there any councillor out there who will stand up and question this nonsense?