What is there to Hide?

We previously reported that a report was presented to the members of the Standards Advisory Committee at their scheduled January meeting. They, sensibly, decided that they needed more than a couple of minutes to go through the 100 plus pages.

The report, commissioned at a cost of several tens of thousands of pounds, goes, we understand into the details of the disagreements between Mayor Fiaz and Cllr Terry Paul. The consultants, we are given to understand, met with various witnesses and took evidence from former staff members as well as those with knowledge of the actual event that gave rise to the complaints.

We would like to be more candid, but alas, we can’t. 

The report was presented on ‘green paper’, the council’s mechanism for distinguishing material of a confidential nature. This is generally used when there are issues of commercial confidentiality and it is not a bad thing. Some things are appropriately kept confidential.

We have to ask if this is one of them?

Is a report into the behaviour of an elected official, of a public body, a woman paid by the public (to the tune of £86k pa) and a report into her behaviour, commissioned at the public’s expense something that should remain confidential?

This would appear to be a matter of public interest if there ever was one.

We understand that there is a whispering campaign to the effect that the report exonerates Mayor Fiaz.

If that is so, why won’t they publish it?

Our suspicion is that the very best spin that can be put on the report is that it is rather more nuanced than that and that it contains evidence to support earlier allegations of bullying of colleagues, and possibly staff. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we suspect that the general public will view this in the same way.

We have learned that the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, Cllr Tony McAlmont, has intervened with a view to persons mentioned in the report having the opportunity to see what is said. His request to the Chief Exec was denied. 

“When we last spoke about the conduct complaint - budget work commission report, I asked for the report to be made available to members of the then budget scrutiny, because they were all implicated in the remarks, made by the mayor, hence my referral of the entire commission.

You refused to grant my request, but undertook to send each budget member, a letter explaining that the investigation found no wrongdoing on their part. To date this letter has not been received by any member or myself.

I have not pursued it before now, because I was aware that the standard advisory committee meeting of the 10th of January, agreed to adjourn to give the committee members sufficient time to read the report.

Now that this meeting was held on the 25th of January, please may I ask that you send the promised letter informing members that they were not found to have done anything wrong.

I should also request that you had assurances, as per the report findings, that members questions were all in order, and that scrutiny has a right to be robust in its questioning of witnesses.”

We have not yet seen the reply from Abi Gbago. However, sources have told us that Ms Gbago’s response was somewhat curt and she now refuses any further communications with elected councillors on this matter.

Reading from the tone of Cllr McAlmont’s email, it is apparent some elected members see the newly appointed Chief Exec’s role more as protecting the mayor than championing open government.

Quoting from the LGA’s Chief Executives’ Development Framework, we note the following from the core competencies:

• Leadership: accountable for overall service delivery and managerial effectiveness.

• Direction: clarity of direction, and continuous improvement of functions.

• Culture: building an open, inclusive, learning and public service focus.

The messaging of her refusal to communicate with councillors on this matter raises concerns. It seems that councillors can be ignored if they ask questions the executive doesn’t like. So much for an “open, inclusive, learning and public service focus”.

Let us posit a suggestion. The whole point of back-bench councillors is to question the executive!!! Particularly where Labour has an overwhelming majority.

In this case it is the most senior back-bencher asking the questions. If what we have been informed is correct, then this suggests an alarming and unwelcome drift into a bunker mentality at the centre of the council. We suggest that it is implausible that the new chief exec has responded without consulting the mayor on this. We may be wrong, but we doubt it.

Sources closer to the events have suggested that the chief exec’s refusal to publish or even let councillors see the report is evidence of a cover-up. 

If Mayor Fiaz is not a bully as alleged, they ask, why not allow the witnesses and more crucially the public who elected her to see the evidence and make up their own minds on the matter? 

If the allegations against the mayor are true, then don’t the residents of Newham deserve to know how the political leader of their Borough treats staff and council colleagues? 

Either way, it seems that there is a legitimate public interest in the contents of the report paid for by us; concerning people elected by us, being made public. 

This particular issue has the potential to be a running sore for Fiaz, particularly if say, a number of residents wrote in to the Chief Exec with a Freedom of Information request.