It Seems That We Were Right!

On Thursday 28th November, the Monitoring Officer of the council wrote to all council members to inform them that: “Newham Council has received a claim issued by the directly elected Mayor, Rohksana Fiaz OBE.”

Given that Dockside had been awash with suggestions that there was no case, this came as something of a surprise to some members. But not to all. There were of course some who read about this in Open Newham.

The news has now reached The Standard and Rachel Burford has tweeted about it.

There are elements of this story that are farcical and elements that are concerning. Not the least of which is how well the council can run, (and we know that it was already struggling), when the Mayor and the Chief Exec are at loggerheads. 

In part this conflict is believed to be a response to Fiaz’s personality and this is why some members believe that the council has been through five chief execs in as many years. In part it is because Fiaz discovered, (via Open Newham) that the current post holder is actively seeking employment elsewhere after one year in the job.

The Monitoring Officer, Rachel McKoy (pronouns she/her) is at pains to reassure councillors that “The existence of the claim will not impact on the usual constitutional functioning of the council, its decision taking or processes.”

This would be reassuring, if we believed it.

The concerns that we have include the following.

Every director and the chief exec owe their position to the mayor. She appointed them. They are now expected to defend the interests of the council and the work that they have done, against that same mayor.

If our information is correct, and we are as yet unable to see the tribunal documents, the allegations are that by following up on complaints of bullying from elected members, the Black chief exec acted in such a manner as to be racist towards the South Asian mayor. (The same mayor that had appointed her only months before.)

We have to hedge everything with caveats because neither the mayor nor the council have chosen to be candid with their remarks on the matter, (you might even describe their attitudes as secretive). This is our current understanding, and it may change if and when more information becomes available. (As always, should either the mayor or the chief exec wish to send us information or indeed their personal views, we will commit to publish their contributions, unedited.)

We don’t know if the mayor feels that she was personally attacked by the chief exec or whether Ms Gbago was simply the personification of a more nebulous body within the council. 

It is difficult to imagine that relations between the two remain cordial. It would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall when they next meet to discuss, say, the budget.

Ms McKoy (she/her)  points out to councillors that the mayor “is also entitled not to face any victimisation or retribution” for bringing the case.

Our concern is that victimisation might be effected in the opposite direction. The Labour Party in Newham is riddled with the corpses of former friends and allies of the mayor.

It is perfectly understandable that the employing body should not be permitted to victimise a claimant. It is a little unclear who in the council would be able to do this to their ultimate boss. It is almost inevitable that junior officers will, to use a colloquial phrase, “take the piss”. And they might be entirely justified in asking just what their bosses are doing? (Phrases such as rearranging deckchairs and fiddling while Rome burns come to mind.)

But junior officers are unlikely to be in a position to “victimise” Mayor Fiaz.

Opposition councillors might seek to make political capital over what is frankly a ludicrous situation. If the mayor has lost confidence in the council, it is not unreasonable that the members of the opposition might make hay at the expense of Ms Fiaz. And well they should. No-one else, it seems is there to hold Ms Fiaz to account.

We hope that Ms McKoy is not seeking to forestall any comment from councillors who are, after all, elected to raise matters just such as this. Any attempt to try to silence their voices would clearly be an attack on the very concept of a democratic process.

The Labour Group might seek to exercise some political control over their ‘leader’, ‘might’ being the operative word. This tribunal case has all the necessary elements to make Newham Council and the Labour Party a laughingstock. Labour councillors and the Labour Party might just want to mitigate the damage.

Afterword.

You have to feel a little bit sorry for chief exec Abi Gbago. Her role at Newham must feel increasingly like a chalice of slow acting poison.

If she successfully defends the case and protects the interests of the council and the residents, she will be seen as honest, but who wants a director who might turn against them?

If the contrary happens, and somehow Fiaz wins against the council, Gbago will have been running a body that was discriminatory.

Either way, you can’t see this chapter improving her chances of another job.