Discourteous, aggressive & threatening

18 Sep

“Discourteous, aggressive & threatening.”

“Discourteous, aggressive & threatening”

Tucked away at the bottom of the agenda for Monday’s council meeting is a Decision Notice of the Standards (Hearing) Sub-Committee. It is the outcome of an investigation into a breach of the code of conduct by councillor Ian Corbett, mayoral chum and ‘full-time’ advisor on environment and leisure.

Here it is in full:

The Complaint

On 26 August 2015 the Standards (Hearing) Sub-Committee considered a complaint made by a member of the public concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Ian Corbett towards a Council employee at Newham Town Hall, East Ham on 3 September 2014.

A general summary of the complaint is that Councillor Ian Corbett acting in an official capacity spoke in an inappropriate manner and acted discourteously towards a member of staff in the reception area at Newham Town Hall. This conduct also took place in the presence of a member of the public.

The Independent Investigator’s report concluded that Councillor Ian Corbett had breached the Member Code of Conduct by his behaviour towards the member of staff which was discourteous, aggressive and threatening.

The Decision

Having sought and taken into account the views of the Independent Person the Standards (Hearing) Sub-Committee resolved that:

i) Councillor Ian Corbett had breached the Code of Conduct by not engaging with the member of staff in an appropriate manner and not treating the person with respect;

ii) The Monitoring Officer write to Councillor Ian Corbett to advise him on his future conduct and place on record the Sub-Committee’s disappointment and concern that he had failed to engage in the investigation process at any part of the procedure despite numerous requests which went against the spirit of the Code of Conduct.

iii) That the decision of the Sub-Committee be reported to the next available meeting of Council.

Just like the mayor last year when he was investigated – and found guilty – over his behaviour towards the Focus E15 mums, Corbett has completely blanked the Standards Committee investigation. Refused to cooperate in any way. The committee’s observation that this goes “against the spirit of the Code of Conduct” is barely begins to cover it.

Standards, like scrutiny, is being treated with utter contempt.

Tags: , ,

No standards

11 Sep

The mayor has received a complaint about the behaviour of Cllr Ken Clark at this year’s Newham Show.

The email contains considerable detail about the incident, in which Cllr Clark swore violently and at some length at Ahmed Noor in front of other councillors and members of the public. It claims that Cllr Clark’s actions have bought both the council and the Labour party into disrepute. It concludes:

 I request you start an independent enquiry and the Standards Committee considering (sic) the nature of the misconduct by Cllr Clark 

There is a procedure for handling complaints against elected members. It is described on the council website and it is set out formally in Part 2, article 9 of the council’s constitution:

The Monitoring Officer shall be the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct…

The Monitoring Officer shall, after consultation with the Independent Person(s), determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and arrange such investigation.  

If there’s an investigation it’s carried out by the Standards Advisory Committee. Not the mayor. In fact the constitution explicitly excludes him from membership of the committee. 

So, even setting aside any concerns about a conflict of interest because of his close working relationship with Ken Clark, Sir Robin only had two options when he received the email: he could have told the complainant that he was not the right person to deal with the matter, and that they needed to write to the Monitoring Officer directly; or he could have passed the matter to the Monitoring Officer, telling the complainant that this was what he’d done.

But of course the rules don’t apply to the mayor and he did neither of those things. Instead, this was his reply:

I am writing to clarify a few things following receipt of your email. Just a couple of questions:

  1. You provide a considerable amount of detail which raises a number of questions. Given the detail I assume you were present and I need a few questions answered. Could you please provide me with contact details, telephone, address etc., so that I can arrange to meet you in person and discuss these questions.
  2. I note that you appear to have used a Council distribution group for all members of the Council which is only available through the Council’s email system. I presume that you got this from a councillor or perhaps a member of staff? If you could provide me with their details I can have a chat with them about the issues.
  3. Just to clarify, you make several references to the Newham Labour Party but I do not believe you are yourself a member. Is that correct? Perhaps you are a member in another Borough?

A quick response so we can meet in the very near future would be very helpful.

Regards,

Robin Wales

There’s no acknowledgement of the seriousness of the allegation, no suggestion that this is matter that needs to be put through the proper channels. Just a bullying and sinister tone. How do you suppose that ‘chat’ with whoever provided the email addresses would go?

Replying to Sir Robin the complainant says:

I am very much puzzled as to why you were far more eager to know my background instead of starting the investigation thoroughly against Councillor Ken Clark

Well, they might be puzzled, but I’m not.

Sir Robin holds the code of conduct and the Standards Committee in absolute contempt. When he was investigated by the Standards Committee last year he refused to even acknowledge the investigation, much less provide any evidence. He and his chums are untouchable. They can behave as they like, without fear of the consequences. 

And as we see in this case, he’d much rather pursue the complainant than any complaint.

Tags: , , ,

Return on investment

3 Sep

“If you look around the table and can’t tell who the sucker is – it’s you.”

The mayor has been on week-long trip to China with council chief executive Kim Bromley-Derry, paid for by Chinese developer ABP, and now he’s looking at investing in its Royal Albert Dock project.

The Newham Recorder asked him about the plans:

“We’re always looking at opportunities to invest in projects,” he said.

“…we will always look at opportunities to make money out of projects.

“Each project is judged on its merits of course, but if we can make money and there was an opportunity we’ll do it.”

Sadly this is not the first time the mayor has decided to use public money to play ‘Investment Bankers’ after being sold a dodgy business plan by a man in a shiny suit.

Back in 2012 the London Pleasure Gardens was, according to one of its directors

“going to be one of the coolest places to watch live sports, chill out and catch some amazing events.

“This isn’t just a commercial proposition – we want to be a whole new cultural hub for London and beyond.”

It turned out to be a fiasco that cost Newham council taxpayers close to £5 million for the five weeks it was open.

The company was bankrolled by a £3.3 million loan from the council, plus a further £800,000 because of interest and costs. The council also ended up paying £444,000 to Deloitte for administrators’ fees (graciously discounted from the £1 million they actually racked up) after the business went bust.

Unable to accept the reality of the situation a Newham council spokeswoman insisted:

“The council is continuing to discuss the future use of the site with relevant parties and remains confident that we will see a return on our investment.”

That, of course, never happened.

And awkward questions about what happened to the money, why what was delivered by LPG was so far from what was promised and the evidently hopeless quality of the due diligence carried out by council officers were never even asked by our feeble and supine councillors, much less addressed.

With £40 million of our money on the line with the Olympic stadium ‘loan’ and another £5 million already earmarked for ‘retail opportunities’ in the Queen Elizabeth Park councillors should be wary of indulging the mayor’s next investment fantasy.

Tags: , , ,

Pensions again

3 Sep

Professional Pensions has reported on Sir Robin’s decision to overrule the recommendation of Overview & Scrutiny (OSC) and proceed to spend £500,000 on developing a ‘special purpose vehicle for Newham’s pension fund.

Forest Gate South councillor Dianne Walls, one of the OSC members who called in the original decision, is quoted at length:

She is concerned about releasing the funds without reference to the Investment & Accounts Committee which “should really look at all of these things very closely”.

Walls believes it is important to look at the proposal in more depth rather than “spending lots of money without due process”.

She said: “It’s a matter of principal, mainly because there’s a lot of decisions made at cabinet and mayor level that have not been open and haven’t been scrutinised properly.”

She added: “As we’ve seen in the past, when decisions are made in haste or without due process, then we make mistakes and we lose money. This is not to say that this actual proposal is wrong – we just don’t know – we need to look at it very carefully before we commit half a million pounds.”

At a time when the council is being forced to make £50m in cuts, she said that spending public money without investigating properly raises the risk of making costly mistakes, which the council “cannot afford to make”.

Cllr Walls noted that call-ins are very rare – only two have been made in 12 years.

And both were on the subject of pensions.

Tags: , ,

Sainsbury Wellcome Centre

3 Sep


via Instagram

Tags: ,

Leader Knows Best

27 Aug

by Rachel Collinson


“I know how this vote is going to go. If the motion was ‘the earth is flat’ councillors Rokhsana, Seyi, Kay and Susan would vote 4-2 for it,” thunders Lester Hudson, as he eyes the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.
 
I’m so offended and shocked by this that I can’t help snorting, despite being in the public gallery.

Hudson continues as though nothing has happened. “If the motion was ‘Geoffrey Boycott is useless at cricket’ they would vote 4-2 for it.” Nobody’s laughing this time. His tirade continues: “I sincerely hope this time, common sense will prevail, but I doubt it.”

There is general uproar, and the female councillors who have been the subject of these personal attacks are rightly livid. (Later on I realise that John Gray – also a member of the rebellion against the Robin Wales regime – is spared the vitriol. Could it be that the Y chromosome is a safeguard?)

A chap to my left passes me a sheet of lined A4 notepaper, with “Attendance Sheet” scrawled at the top. There is a name and one signature on it so far. I pass it on without signing.

A few minutes later, an unnamed lady shouts “Has everybody signed the attendance sheet?”

“I’ve never been asked this before as a member of the public in a council meeting,” I say, annoyed. “It doesn’t say on it how the data will be used, so I didn’t.”

“I just need to know who is here,” she replies.

Well, that much is obvious.

This meeting has been called because Newham Council’s Cabinet have seemingly approved a dubious investment proposal without oversight of the Investment and Accounts Committee. Councillors heard about it in passing and were horrified. They have decided to ask the Mayor to reconsider spending £500,000 without due process.

Council Officers will not let members of the public (or even certain councillors) see more details of what’s proposed. All we know so far is that the Cabinet are attempting to reduce payments to the council’s pension fund –  which already has a £238 million deficit – using a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’. We understand that the council is using some of their buildings as security on a risky investment. How do we know it’s risky? Because their financial advisors are warning them against it.

It seems common sense to me that if the proposal were common sense, then the Cabinet would not resort to bending the rules to avoid scrutiny.

What I am seeing in action here is the Labour belief that Leader Knows Best, and democracy is merely a frustrating blot on the master plan. The belief that the people ought to shut up and take their medicine. The belief that is shown up at its worst in the Executive Mayoral system.

This is further confirmed when a member of the public stands up and questions whether the chair should be asking loaded questions of his own committee. The offender, Anthony McAlmont, says that members of the public are not allowed to speak, despite having allowed an earlier question. For some reason this breach of meeting protocol goes unnoticed by the Legal advisor present.

I hear the words ‘p&%$-up’ and ‘brewery’ emanate loudly from elsewhere in the public gallery.

With dogged persistence, the female councillors draft a resolution that no more money should be spent until the investment and accounts committee has had a chance to review the proposal in more detail. In the end, the meeting vote is 5-1 for this motion.

Hudson warns this is a waste of time. What does he know that we don’t?

During this fiasco, I am reminded of the botched Labour leadership elections. You can vote for anything, as long as it’s the right choice.

As if to reinforce this, the Mayor rejects the motion day after.

It would be easy to despair right now. But I’m seeing a new movement emerging amongst the people of Newham. I see it in the snowballing, hopeful tweets about Jeremy Corbyn. I see it in the growing bravery of left-wing councillors against their bullying leaders. I see it in the swelling numbers of Newham Green Party.

And it’s almost reassuring to observe some councillors in utter denial of this growing trend. It means we will win, and soon.

If you’re interested in helping the Green Party challenge Labour’s one party state in Newham, do sign up here. (NB: We have a No Purge Promise™)

Rachel Collinson is acting membership secretary for Newham Green Party, and a former General Election candidate. 

Tags: , , ,

More pensions malarkey

18 Aug

Bankers can’t believe their luck as Newham buys into another crazy scheme

Newham Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee will meet next Monday (24 August) to discuss the council’s pension arrangements. Not the new scheme for councillor pensions this time, but the fund that pays for ordinary staff pensions.

Despite the current state of the council’s finances and the need to make significant cuts the Mayor has decided to spend up to £500,000 developing an asset-backed ‘special purpose vehicle’ (SPV) to finance its defined benefit staff pension scheme.  The idea is to give the scheme security over some of the council’s property portfolio, thereby allowing it to reduce its cash contributions.

At its last valuation in 2013 Newham’s pension fund was found to have a £298m deficit.

The decision to spend money developing the new asset-backed SPV was made without the agreement of the Investment & Accounts Committee, whose principal purpose is to oversee the council’s pension funds.

Cllr John Gray, who sits on the IAC, has raised concerns about this proposal and one pensions expert described it as “bloody dangerous”:

Have they learnt nothing from the City as to how not to do it? SPV-financing mechanisms were a significant part of what caused the financial crisis. 

[This] feels like they have been sold a pup by some City whizz. And where does this kind of financing arrangement (off balance sheet most likely) end?

Another expert, Judith Donnelly, told Professional Pensions magazine the half-million pound price “sounds excessive” and that

she would not normally expect it to cost that much to put an asset-backed structure in place

The government announced in its summer budget that if local authority pension funds do not pool their funds they will be effectively forced to do so. So any money Newham spends now investigating changes to its pension scheme could be wasted.

After the dreadful publicity surrounding the £560 million of hugely expensive LOBO loans the council has taken out and the stench emanating from West Ham United’s Olympic stadium deal, not to mention the naked self-interest of the new executive pension scheme, some backbench councillors are finally taking a proper interest in what’s going on. As Cllr Gray put it when speaking to Professional Pensions:

We should be extra careful not in invest in such complex products without the highest level of scrutiny.

That is why Overview and Scrutiny have ‘called in’ the decision. The request to do so was made by Little Ilford councillor Farah Nazeer, who also sits on the Investment and Accounts committee:

I am writing to request that you support my application to “call in” the decision by the Executive at the Cabinet Meeting on Thursday 23rd July 2015 (item 5) to spend up to £500,000 of public money on setting up an “Alternative Asset backed Financing for the Newham Pension Fund”.

I believe that this is the wrong sequencing for this decision because the proposal has not been consulted upon and agreed beforehand with the Newham Council Investment & Accounts Committee.

As a member of this committee I am concerned that this proposal may not be in the best interests of the Council nor the staff Pension fund and we might waste this £500,000 if the Committee decide that this proposal is not appropriate. I understand that the alternative asset proposal has significant risks attached to it which I feel merit proper scrutiny. 

It is inappropriate in principal for any such proposal to go ahead without the agreement of the Investment and Accounts committee beforehand.

I request that the Overview & Scrutiny committee should examine the arguments and consider making a recommendation back to the Executive that no further expenditure of public funds is made until the Investment and Accounts committee have had a chance to fully consider the proposal and are made aware of all  the possible costs and benefits of the scheme.

All Overview and Scrutiny meetings are open to the public. Next Monday’s is at 6:30 at East Ham Town Hall.

Tags: , ,

Love Newham

14 Aug

Swipe right

The Love Newham app takes an unexpected new direction…

Tags:

No concessions

14 Aug

Freedom of Information request posted on What Do They Know:

I understand that you provide a discount to concessionary groups at leisure centres. I attended East Ham leisure centre recently to register my children and myself for swimming lessons and other activities. I brought necessary proofs but was refused concessionary payments facilities as your staffs confirmed that asylum seekers or asylum support are not included on their system.

Therefore I urgently request you to review your scheme and add extra concessionary groups such as asylum seekers as you actually do for students and those who receive council tax benefits. You are aware that asylum support is offered by the Home Office and as an asylum seeker and his family supported by NASS, we are entitled to free services within the borough. In this particular case, I am not asking you for free services but merely requesting you to add this particular group of applicants in your system to avoid future complications in this respect.

I will be thankful if you could provide me your policy in this respect as I have checked other boroughs which do give concessionary payments to asylum seekers supported by NASS under Section 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I am concerned to note that Newham council do not have this in place.

Contrary to the myths peddled by the popular press, life is pretty tough for asylum seekers while their cases are being processed. If this is the result of a deliberate policy decision by the council it is appallingly mean-spirited and petty. If not, it’s something that can – and should – be put right quickly.

Tags: ,

Paranoid

13 Aug

Unmesh shopping

Making sure no-one’s listening in

The mayor is famously intolerant of dissent, to the point of paranoia, and it seems that this has now infected those around him.

At the end of a budget briefing session last night at Newham Dockside Unmesh Desai decided to hold a briefing of his own, not on council business but on his campaign to be the Labour candidate for City & East in next year’s London elections.

He asked council officers to leave and then noticed a 17-year old ‘A’ level student who had been shadowing a councillor for the day, getting an insight into how local government works. He insisted she leave as well.

He then said he didn’t want any non-supporters in the room. So three councillors walked out, along with the bemused teenager.

Not exactly a great introduction to local politics, but a perfect illustration of how Newham Labour party works.

Not just the paranoia but the use of council property for party business. The “Desai 4 City & East” campaign should be getting a bill for the room, although history suggests they won’t.

Tags: , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →