Nothing to see here. But “Culture and Behaviour” need to change.
It seems that there has been some movement on the matter of the standards committee report. Readers will recall that Newham Council spent several tens of thousands of pounds of council -taxpayers’ money on an investigation into allegations made by Cllr Terry Paul, against the mayor for allegations of bullying towards staff and councillors.
After a year of investigating, they eventually submitted a report, which no-one else was allowed to see.
Apparently, the report exonerates the mayor. (And everyone else.) But still, nobody is allowed to see it.
We opined that this course of action might cause some of the more distrustful members of the community to suspect that because Newham were not being as transparent as they might be, that they were trying to hide something.
Some of them might even recall the pledges given by the candidate Fiaz when she promised “to build a culture of trust and openness”. And they might feel a little let down.
Now we learn that the monitoring officer has circulated a note for a resolution to the committee.
This noted that “a confidential investigation has been conducted”. We have to ask, was this done as a “confidential investigation” at the outset, or was this a case of trying to rewrite history? A motion stating that it was confidential will mean that it never needs to be released, because it's “confidential”.
This rather conflicts with what was said to witnesses. Witnesses to the inquiry were told by, independent investigator and solicitor Simon Goacher that any evidence would not be confidential and names of witnesses would be disclosed. We understand that this was the reason that several councillors and staff refused to give evidence to the inquiry because of a fear of retribution.
Would it be too cynical to suggest that because they have received an FOI request, they are now seeking to find administrative ways in which to keep matters secret?
The committee was asked to support the claim that a “full and thorough investigation was carried out”.
Again, this does seem to be at variance with the facts as they have been presented to us. We understand that the mayor complained about members of the scrutiny commission creating a hostile environment for her as a Muslim Woman of Colour; additionally, she asserted, misogynistic behaviour.
None of this seems to have made its way into the report, (perhaps because it was all nonsense), but the failure to address the allegations suggests that the report was not quite as “full and thorough” as it might have been.
That is a useful form of words that adds nothing to the sum of knowledge but shuts down any suggestion that there might be something missing. It allows for a finding based upon circular logic; it was “full and thorough” because we said it was “full and thorough”. No problem there then.
Happily, we learn that “no breach of the code of conduct” happened.
It took them a little over a year to find out that apparently, nobody did anything wrong.
Even though, we are told, the mayor didn’t do anything wrong, the chief exec. still feels the need to introduce a paper to the April meeting of the committee “to address the issues of culture and behaviour” amongst Newham’s elected leaders. Why is it that the mayor specifically (see Item 4 below) needs to be written to regarding the Inquiry’s “concern at the issues raised” in the report?
There is a real problem of transparency, or lack thereof. This is either an exhibition of appalling condescension or there is something that smells that is being covered up.
Let us explain.
We’d like to think that the mayor and councillors are grown-ups, that they can have disagreements without getting petulant. We’d be rather upset if there was so little disagreement, so little passion that they all just nodded through whatever the whip told them to do.
Occasionally tempers will flare. That is why, in countless cultures, people before us invented the apology; why in politics the whip intervenes to calm tempers, and get members to focus on the issues not their personal grievances. The fact that this system is completely inoperative in Newham suggests that the malaise in the Labour Group goes deeper than we imagined.
Maybe one of the elected members will enquire about the chief exec., why is it, if no-one has breached any rules, that issues of “culture and behaviour” have to be addressed?
Elected members are grown-ups, or at least they have reached the age of majority, (some of them several times over). Why do they need a babysitter telling them what to do?
The resolution concludes that eventually, the committee, of largely non-elected members will provide “input” on how the mayor should behave towards colleagues and staff.
Is it the case that the behaviour of one individual is so dysfunctional that the whole council needs to be reorganised around her?
Text of the Resolution
To note the confidential Investigation Report and agree that a full and thorough investigation has been carried out.
To note that no Breach of the Code of Conduct had been found by any Member.
That a report from the Chief Executive on the work to address the issues of culture and behaviour at the Authority should be considered at the Committee’s next meeting in April.
That the Chair should write to the Mayor outlining the committee’s concern at the issues raised in the Investigation Report.
That the Committee review as part of their work programme, the LGA Peer Review Action Plan once published, the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) report, and provide input on the work to address the organisation’s culture and behaviour.