Showing posts with label Aslam Choudry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aslam Choudry. Show all posts

Tuesday 20 December 2016

Shama Tatler appointed to Brent Cabinet Regeneration post

Rather oddly the above popped up on the Brent Council website before any public announcement.

Cllr Tatler replaces Cllr Roxanne Mashari in what many see as potentially the most powerful Cabinet post given the multi-million development projects in Wembley and Kilburn.

Tatler's back ground is in education and this is the area that brings her most passionate contributions to Council meetings.  Previously she has been tipped for the children and families portfolio.  The present children and families post-holder is Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell Murry who is currently relieved of the post. Council leader Muhammed Butt is currently managing the statutory element of the position.

A well-placed source suggested that two other councillors were offered the post, but turned it down, before Cllr Tatler accepted it.

Observers are puzzled that the 'hugely experienced' Aslam Choudry has been over-looked while others thought that Cllr Sabina Khan's business background made her a contender for the employment and skills aspects of the Regeneration portfolio.


Tuesday 4 November 2014

Wembley Matters prints the Deputation on racism case that Brent Council banned

Mr Philip Grant was not allowed to make a deputation at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee on the subject of Brent Council's appeal on the Employment Trubinal case that found the Council guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

In a terse statement at the beginning of the meeting Cllr Aslam Choudry said that deputations would not be heard, indicating that there was more than one, and almost as an aside said it was not on the agenda. In fact Deputations (if any) were Item 2 on the Agenda.

In the interests of democracy, a concept not currently being upheld by the members and officers of Brent Council, I publish below what Philip Grant would hace said, if he had been allowed to:
-->
“Deputation” for Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November 2014

I am speaking as an individual Brent resident, but I hope that the many people who have raised this matter online, in letters to local newspapers and at recent “Brent Connects” meetings, will feel that I am expressing their concerns as well.

I am here to formally request that Scrutiny Committee will agree to urgently scrutinise the decision, made in the name of Brent Council around 26 September, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the case of Rosemarie Clarke v. London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani.

The Employment Tribunal found, on very clear evidence set out in its judgement, that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development had been constructively dismissed by the Council in 2013, and that she had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination.

Although a Council statement has said that it took independent legal advice before deciding to appeal, I believe that the decision is likely to be an unsafe one,
and not in the best interests of Brent Council or the people of the borough.
Briefly stated, my reasons for that belief are these:

1.   Brent has already victimised Rosemarie Clarke, through her treatment after she first complained of being bullied and harassed by Cara Davani in late 2012, then through the ordeal of an Employment Tribunal to prove that she had been constructively dismissed. In taking the case to appeal, rather than apologising, and compensating her for the harm she has suffered, Brent is continuing that victimisation.

2.   As I explained to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, as soon as the decision to appeal was made public, Brent does not need to appeal in order to “clear its name” of racial discrimination in this case. It simply needs to tell the truth about why Council Officers decided to carry on with disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee, and ensure that the Officers involved face the consequences of their actions.

3.   Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. They would also have had in mind a wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected. This probable conflict of interests makes the decision an unsafe one, and a possible abuse of their power and of the trust placed in them.

4.   The appeal will involve costs, perhaps considerable costs. If the legal action is being pursued in the interests of individual Senior Council Officers, rather than in the best interests of Brent Council, that is a misuse of Council Taxpayers’ money, at a time when “every penny counts”.

I am aware that you have been advised, by the Council’s Legal Director, Fiona Ledden, that this decision to appeal is not one which it is open to you to scrutinise, as it is an Officer decision not an Executive decision. As I have already indicated to you in writing, I believe that advice to be incorrect. Under your Committee’s terms of reference in Part 5 of Brent's Constitution, the functions which the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ include:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'



You can scrutinise the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement, I have set out why you should scrutinise it, and I hope that you will agree to do so, as a matter of urgency. Thank you.



Philip Grant,

3 November 2014

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Philip Grant is doing democracy a service in Brent, as well as standing up for its residents, and deserves our support.

Sunday 2 November 2014

Will Brent’s decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement be scrutinised? (… or will the attempted cover-up continue?)

This Guest Blog by Philip Grant raises further questions over the lack of scrutiny in Brent as well as the power waged by members of the Corporate Management Team.

-->
Most readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of the Employment Tribunal decision against Brent Council and its Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani. On 4 September, the Tribunal found that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed by the Council, and had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination at its hands. 

Given these findings, and the strong evidence set out in the detailed judgement to back them up, any reasonable person would think that the Council should be quick to apologise to Rosemarie for the harm done to her by Cara Davani, and by the other officers, up to and including its interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, who the Tribunal found had failed to protect her from this victimisation, as its procedures required that they should. However, on 26 September the Council issued a statement, saying among other things:

Following independent legal advice, we have decided to appeal as there appear to be legal errors in the Tribunal’s reasoning, in particular on the direct race discrimination and victimisation aspects of the judgement.’



I wrote straight away to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt to remind him that any appeal against the tribunal's decision could only be made on points of law. The facts found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, could not be overturned by an appeal. The racial discrimination finding turned on whether Brent could show a valid reason why their treatment of Ms Clarke, by continuing action against her for alleged misconduct after she had ceased to be an employee of the Council, was different from that of a white male employee in the same situation. Brent completely failed to do that, which was why the tribunal was correct in law on that point.



I drew Cllr. Butt’s attention to paragraph 240 of the tribunal judgement, which recorded Brent’s (scarcely credible) evidence on who had made the crucial decision which led to the racial discrimination finding:


‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision.’


The tribunal also recorded that, despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer, Fiona Ledden, had chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie Clarke “guilty” of gross misconduct in her absence. I put it to the Council Leader that Brent did not need to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in order to clear its name of the finding of racial discrimination. It simply needed to tell the truth over the real reason why that decision to continue disciplinary proceedings was taken, and ensure that the Council Officers who had mistreated Rosemarie, and had tried to cover-up this wrongdoing at the tribunal, faced the consequences of their actions. 

I have not received any reply from Cllr. Butt on this matter. As it appeared that he was not prepared to take any action to stop the Council’s appeal from going ahead, I wrote to the Chairman of Brent Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, with copies to the other committee members, on 8 October, asking that committee to consider urgently scrutinising the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement. I set out the main facts and findings of the judgement, and gave my reasons why I believed ‘that the decision has not been made in the best interests of Brent Council, but in the interests of certain Council Officers who wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected.’

The Council statement on 26 September had only said ‘we have decided to appeal’, and in order to establish who exactly had taken that decision, and on whose advice, I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on 30 September. The response I received to this, from an interim Senior Employment lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, was: ‘In our opinion all of the information and documents requested are covered by legal privilege.’ I challenged this ruling, as it is ridiculous to claim that the identity of the person who decided to appeal is covered by ‘legal privilege’. The matter is now the subject of an Internal Review, with a decision due to be given, by another lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, in November.

Although two members of Brent’s Scrutiny Committee acknowledged receipt of my email of 8 October straight away, Cllr. Choudry did not reply until 22 October, and then only to say that he was seeking further information from Cllr. Pavey, and seeking a meeting with Cllr. Butt to discuss the matter, and that he hoped to respond to the request to scrutinise the appeal decision by the end of the week. When he had not replied, I wrote to ask him to list my request on the agenda for the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November. That agenda was posted on the Council’s website soon afterwards, without this item on it. On 25 October I wrote again to Cllr. Choudry, with copies to other members of the Scrutiny Committee, asking that one of them should give notice to the designated Council officer that they wished to add ‘a request received from a member of the public to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against a recent Employment Tribunal judgement’ as any item of ‘any other urgent business’ on the agenda for their meeting on 3 November.

Cllr.Choudry replied on Monday 27 October, saying that he had carefully noted my comments, and:

‘I have also taken advice from Council Solicitors - Fiona Leddon and, she has advised me with following response: 

"Dear Councillor , Further to our discussion earlier today I can confirm as I stated to you that the function of call in to support scrutiny is in relation to Executive decisions. The Executive function is taken by the Cabinet, the decision in relation to an appeal of an Employment Tribunal case is Not a member but an Officer decision." ’


As a result of this advice, Cllr. Choudry said that he would not be putting this matter on the Scrutiny Committee’s agenda. I replied later that day, saying:


‘In normal circumstances, I would accept the view that you have set out, but these are exceptional circumstances, and I would ask you to reconsider this matter for two very good reasons:

1.     I believe that the advice you have been given by Ms Ledden, as quoted to me in your email, is incorrect.

2.     Ms Ledden has a conflict of interests in this matter, as she is likely to have made, or to have been involved in advising on, the decision which I have requested should be scrutinised by your Committee, and she may well have personal reasons for wishing the Employment Tribunal decision to be kept "sub judice" as a result of the appeal against it.’

Although Ms Ledden’s advice did not say outright that Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet, and cannot scrutinise decisions made by Council Officers, it gave that impression very strongly. I was able to show, by reference to Brent's Constitution, that among the functions that the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ (under its terms of reference at Part 5) are:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'


I have given notice under Standing Order 69 that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November about my request that they should urgently scrutinise Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement. I have also again asked Cllr. Choudry, or any other member of the Scrutiny Committee, to give notice under Standing Order 64 that my request should be treated as ‘any other urgent business’ at that meeting, which can be done at any time prior to the commencement of the meeting on Monday. 


I will attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting (Monday 3 November at 7pm, at Brent Civic Centre) ready to speak, but I have yet to hear back from Cllr. Choudry whether I will be allowed to do so. I believe that the decision, in the name of Brent Council, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case is a bad decision, and that it should be properly scrutinised, particularly as it is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, and culpable in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. If anyone else who feels the same is able to attend, I would welcome their moral support, although it is uncertain whether my views, and theirs, will get a hearing.

Philip Grant


Thursday 7 August 2014

Brent's Super Scrutiny found wanting

Last night's first meeting of the 'Super' Scrutiny Committee of Brent Council, which replaces several specialist scrutiny committees, revealed the weakness of the new system.

Firstly, committee members seemed unclear of their remit and their powers, with only Cllr Mary Daly appearing well-briefed and prepared to ask awkward questions.

Perhaps because of time constraints in the over-crowded agenda, the chair, Aslam Choudry, limited questions from members of the committee, although he did allow the public to speak. On the Garden Tax he was reduced to asking Cllr Keith Perrin, lead member for the environment, and the officer, if they truly believed the waste collection changes were a good thing. Of course they did!

The outcome of the Central Middlesex A&E closure, local health reforms and the Garden tax discussions were anodyne proposals about monitoring and returning to the committee later,

Cllr Janice Long, a former member of the Executive, and one of those calling in the Garden Tax tweeted:
 Signed the call-in on Garden waste, sat through mtg but not allowed to ask questions. Had to email officers. Appalling lack of scrutiny.
The public gallery was crowded for the meeting and the general consensus was that the Committee would have to do a lot better in the future if the Cabinet is to be held to account.


Monday 31 March 2014

Brent Council's ambiguous approach to immigration

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council acted quickly on the 'racist van' issue and UKBA raids on local stations. He appeared in the media to denounce the impact of such strategies on a diverse community and also condemned the estsate agents who were alleged to discriminate against prospective black tenants.

However, the Council also took part in raids on shop premises in Willesden Green alongside the UK Border Agency and have imposed dispersal orders, support by the police and UKBA on workers waiting for a day's labour in the traditional Cricklewood picking up points.

Now the lead member for Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Cllr Aslam Choudry, has circulated his March Report to councillors that states:
I have received complaints from various people in Mapesbury, Dudden Hill and Dollis Hill wards that there are Bulgarian illegal immigrants sleeping rough in Gladstone Park. This is an ongoing issue but has deteriorated recently. brent Safety, Police and Immigrations department are working together to find a solution. Again this will not be an easy but efforts must be made to ensure the safety issues are addressed.
Bulgarians of course have EU rights as I am sure Cllr Choudry  noticed during the recent UKIP induced media panic. Sleeping rough may be unsightly and inconvenient but is there any evidence of any crime result from sleepers' presence in the park - or is there an underlying assumption that they are criminal in the same way that this was applied to Romanians?  There is even some doubt about the extent of the problem and it would be interesting to see some hard evidence.

It was intersting that Cllr Choudry's email was copied in to Lee Skevington who is not a councillor but Brent Labour Party's borough organiser.

Tuesday 25 June 2013

Community protest as police lose CCTV evidence of unprovoked racist attack in Willesden

Guest blog by a group of concerned local residents:

At 5.20am on Sunday 9th June, 5 white men pulled up in a black luxury car near Willesden Bus Garage on the High Road and attacked two young men of African descent, who had just got off a bus from central London.

One managed to avoid being punched in the face and was separated from the other, who was punched to the ground and kicked repeatedly.

Three witnesses across the road shouted out and ran across to his defence; the men got into their car and drove off shouting. The victim was taken by the police to hospital with bruises under his eyes and later had a broken tooth removed.  One of the witnesses, Robin Sivapalan, a local trade unionist met him later at Northwick Park hospital and brought him to his house to recover.

On chasing up the incident later that day with police at Wembley, Robin was informed that the case had not yet been allocated to an investigating officer, nor had it been logged as a racist attack. He stressed to the police officer that the assault could well have been far more damaging had there not been an intervention from the public, that the attackers posed a threat to all Black people - not just the particular victim in this case - and that this was possible backlash to the Woolwich incident.
 
Robin and the victim went to a local business where they were shown the CCTV footage which caught the entire attack, with the car, from two cameras and they informed the police that the evidence was available.
 It took till Thursday for the police to call the victim, and the investigating officer failed to reply to any of the messages left by Robin. By the following Thursday the CCTV footage had been lost. The police had been told that they were welcome to collect the recording equipment themselves while the footage was still retrievable.

The police attended the business on Wednesday 19th and discovered one set of footage had been deleted. They only collected the recording equipment and called in witnesses after DS Williams had been informed by Robin that the second set of footage had also been lost and that he would take the matter further. On Tuesday 25th June the police issued an appeal for witnesses via the Kilburn Times providing the wrong time and location of the assault, with no mention that it was a racist attack.

The case has been brought to the attention of Aslam Choudry, Brent Council’s Lead member for Crime Prevention and Public Safety, also a councillor for Dudden Hill where the incident took place. He has raised it with the police Borough Commander Matthew Gardner and the Council Leader, Muhammed Butt.
 
Local residents in Brent are holding a picket at Wembley Police Station, 6pm, Thursday 27th June, calling for meeting with the Borough Commander that will provide accountability for this failure to act. 

A spokesperson for the residents said:
We don’t believe this is an isolated incident of hate crime in the area. At Brent Council’s commemoration of Lee Rigby, the Borough Commander proudly informed us that there had been no recorded incidents following Woolwich, yet we can see here how the police fail to treat these attacks as hate crimes and are happy to lose the evidence when it handed to them on a plate.
With a spike in Islamophobic and racist attacks around the country, it is shocking that in a Borough where the majority of us could face such an attack, the police can display such complacency and disregard for our concerns. This is exactly the form of institutional racism that is in the media again this week, with the discovery of the police’s attempts to smear Stephen Lawrence’s family.

Saturday 11 May 2013

New look for Brent Council Executive after AGM

Muhammed Butt was elected leader of the Labour Group on Brent Council unopposed today at the AGM. Contenders for the various contested positions were all elected changing the age profile and ethnic composition of the Executive to younger and more diverse.
 
Cllr Powney was defeated by Roxanne Mashari for Environment and Neighbourhoods;  Lesley Jones by James Denselow for Customers and Citizens; Janice Long by Margaret McLennan for Housing and Mary Arnold by Michael Pavey for Children and Families.

Aslam Choudry took the Crime and Public Safety post defeating Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray for the position vacated by Lincoln Beswick.

The first meeting of the new Executive will be on Monday May 20th 7pm Brent Town Hall.  The agenda can be found HERE
Margaret McLennan - Housing
Roxanne Mashari - Environment
James Denselow - Customers
Michael Pavey - Children
Aslam Choudry-Crime

Monday 21 January 2013

A plethora of Brent budget discussions the week after next - but will they make any difference?

The dates for the Brent Budget 'Discussions' (note NOT 'Consultations') have now been sent out in an invitation letter  (see below). The Labour Group is discussing the budget on the evening of Monday February 4th and the Finance and Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be discussing it at 7.30pm on Tuesday February 5th.  It is not clear where that leaves the February 7th meeting in terms of influencing the budget but presumably more details should be available by then following the earlier meetings
Budget Discussion – Invitation to a Public Meeting

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council would like to invite you to one of two public meetings about Brent Council’s budget proposals for the forthcoming year.

Both meetings will take place in Brent Town Hall.

Date
Time
Venue
Chair
Mon 4th Feb
2.30 to 4.30pm
Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3.
Cllr Aslam Choudry
Thur 7th Feb
7.00 to 9.00pm
Paul Daisley Hall. 
Cllr James Denselow

Everyone is welcome to attend. These meetings will give you an opportunity to question and raise issues of concern with Cllr Butt and members of the Council’s executive.

You can also hear about the difficult choices facing local government in the current economic climate and Council’s proposals to continue to maintain high quality services for our residents.

I do hope you be able to attend one of these meetings? If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kindest regards

Owen Thomson
Community Engagement Team
Customer & Community Engagement
Brent Council
Tel: 020 8937 1055