Independents Lodge Emergency Motion-Are Council Officers Blocking Discussion?

In the wake of the Report for the Standards Advisory Committee, which focused on the behaviour of the mayor at Scrutiny in December 2022 and the subsequent clash between her and Cllr Paul, the Independent Group have tabled an emergency motion seeking to have the report published. Details  available on their Twitter/X page.

The Independents have also taken issue with the response to the Peer Review, (we covered the findings in the report here)

We reprint the motion below. The key points raised by the Independents are:

• A “lack of functional prioritisation”;

• The breadth of the Mayor’s portfolio responsibilities is not sustainable and nor is it desirable”;

• There remains a common perception that project and policy detail and decisions require the Mayor’s involvement and sign off before they can progress. Not only does this reflect poor governance, but it is also not a practical, effective or a sustainable approach to running the council.

• Clarity is also required on the form and function of the Mayor’s Office. At present it is perceived as a bottleneck in the organisation which results in delays in decision-making.

• The Peer Review and the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny report into the Scrutiny function at Newham council highlighted poor relationships between the Mayor and Councillors, there was also mention of poor relationships between elected members and officers.

• Council notes that staff expressed to the peer review team that they felt they couldn’t raise issues as “they would be shot down”

• Council notes that a report into the complaint made by Cllr Terence Paul about the conduct of Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz was tabled at the Standards advisory committee meeting held on the 25th January 2024. It was agenda item 4. Titled, ‘conduct complaint budget working commission’. They note that its contents remain secret.

Readers may wish to note that Open Newham has already submitted an FOI request to have the publicly funded report published so that the public may see what they are paying for. This was refused in the first instance on the grounds of ‘confidentiality’! (We are, of course, seeking a review of the decision.)

This is fascinating. ON, aware that confidentiality might be an issue, agreed to the anonomising of the names of the witnesses. We are told that witnesses were informed at the outset that their names would be revealed. Which is why some serving officers declined to give evidence, because they feared retribution. There is no need to expose witnesses. Their names can easily be redacted, and any identifying remarks.  Our suspicion is that the reason given is simply to provide cover to enable politicians to avoid public scrutiny.

So far as we are aware, there are only four other named persons in the report; Mayor Fiaz, Cllr Z. Ali, Cllr T Paul and Cllr A McAlmont. They were either involved in the initial meeting or in subsequent correspondence. All are elected by the voters of N§ewham. We are told that both councillors Paul and McAlmont are happy to have their names published and to be identified with any remarks in the report.

Frankly, Cllr Zulfiqar Ali was only a bit-player in this drama. We would only expect any reference to him to be cursory. That leaves one individual, the mayor.

Our sources tell us that it is the mayor and her new CEO who are blocking publication, possibly with the assistance of the monitoring officer.

Under the circumstances, it would appear to be to save embarrassment rather than to protect confidential data. Indeed, if there is genuinely confidential data, that could easily be redacted. And it appears to us, that the only person seeking to avoid embarrassment is the mayor.

We are told that no rules were breached nor codes of conduct transgressed. So what is there to be embarrassed about?

We have seen that the Greens have already published their willingness to support the motion, which is broader in scope than the report and goes to the heart of a political leadership that is undermining the ability of the council to operate effectively.

Two questions remain. Will unelected officers allow the motion? Or will they block its discussion?

And, will Labour members vote with the Greens and the Independents for transparency and reform, on what is at present an unwhipped vote?

Full Text of the Emergency Motion:

Transparency and Accountability for a Council that is fit for purpose.

Council notes the recently published Local Government Association (LGA) Peer Review report, which highlighted numerous issues within Newham Council.

The Peer Review report made for difficult reading for all who care about the wellbeing and effective running of the council.

The report highlighted a number of failings across the Council, in relation to governance, service delivery and undesirable behaviours:

A “lack of functional prioritisation was a theme throughout the Corporate Peer Challenge”;

“The breadth of the Mayor’s portfolio responsibilities is not sustainable and nor is it desirable”;

“Following the current Mayor’s first election in May 2018, the Mayor made the decision to delegate executive decision-making powers to Cabinet members. However, the peer team heard examples that sometimes practice does not match the delegations to Cabinet members set out in the Constitution. There remains a common perception that project and policy detail and decisions require the Mayor’s involvement and sign off before they can progress. Not only does this reflect poor governance, but it is also not a practical, effective or a sustainable approach to running the council.”;

“Clarity is also required on the form and function of the Mayor’s Office. At present it is perceived as a bottleneck in the organisation which results in delays in decision-making. This is connected to the size of the portfolio the Mayor has and the perception that the Mayor wants “oversight over everything”. Several officers the peer team spoke to mentioned a frustration about the lack of clear rules or processes for engagement with the Mayor’s Office and there are no clear standards in terms of response times for items that are referred ‘up to the Mayor’s Office’. This is leading to unnecessary delays, with an example of one service area waiting for three months to receive a decision. To alleviate this issue the council should review the size and function of the Mayor’s Office to ensure streamlined decision making, remove barriers and duplication elsewhere in the council.”;

“More could be done to empower non-executive councillors to maximise their connections and expertise to support the delivery of the council’s agenda. The peer team felt there is latent potential amongst this cohort which can be further realised through greater involvement and engagement”

The Peer Review and the Centre For Governance and Scrutiny report into the Scrutiny function at Newham council highlighted poor relationships between the Mayor and Councillors, there was also mention of poor relationships between elected members and officers.

Council notes that staff expressed to the peer review team that they felt they couldn’t raise issues as “they would be shot down”

The question that this council should be asking? Is, shot down by whom?

This council believes that all staff members and councillors should be free to carry out their duties, free of fear and intimidation.

This council commends the recent motion proposed by Labour councillors which has subsequently become Council policy to tackle bullying and intimidation within the Council.

This council believes in the rights of workers and we will always fight for the rights of our staff. We believe in empowering trade unions to advocate and speak up for their members who work for the council.

As a council we will never shy away from confronting challenging situations and will always put the needs of our residents before that of any one politician.