How Brent Council leaders nearly lost council tax payers £500k by handing it to contractor

I went to the Full Council meeting on Monday, not a lot happened, appointed a new Chief Executive seems very nice and I understand very capable.  Usual stuff, Cabinet members churn out statistics from the police or officers about what is going on in Brent and selected Labour councilors ask tame question. The opposition tries to ask questions but they are not allowed (no room for opposition in this democracy) or are limited.

The new lead member for Scrutiny Cllr Filson made a speech stating that he was going to scrutinize lots of thing Brent has no control or influence over, well at least it keeps councillors busy. The Scrutiny Committee is however going to hold a scrutiny into the removal of the green bins in Brent.  Cllr Filson, said however it will not be into anything that he believes is not important, like complaints of the members or residents. He firmly said he would decide what is important or not. Well clearly that will save a lot of time for the residents or councilors who were thinking of turning up at the Civic Centre because they might have input and raise issues they think important to them. Truth is what they think does not matter. The only things that matter, is what the lead member thinks is important.

I wonder will he be looking into this?

 In early June 2014, I saw a copy of the green waste collection proposals. I had great concerns about it because it looked like the removal of the green bins had not been thought through and the financial implications, left us subsidising the contractor (Veolia) with Brent ratepayer possibly losing out by up to £500k. I raised my concerns with both the Leader and Deputy Leader and even wrote a report about my concerns and laying out some alternatives, but they did not indicate they would alter the report. The report was due to go to cabinet on the 22^nd of July

On the 17^th July, 5 days before the Cabinet, I was getting frantic, I emailed the then Head of Legal stating

“ I intend therefore to write to the district auditor, who will hopefully get me the explanation I require concerning what I believe is a report that disguises savings for the contractor, does not offer Brent residents VFM and is subsidising the private contractor profits via the ratepayers.

All I seek from you is confirmation that you believe the financial implications represent VFM”

The Head of legal replied the same day stating

“I was concerned that you stated what we were proposing was illegal and I confirmed to you legal advice had been given that this was lawful”

I replied the same day stating

 “ I do intend to continue with my complaint to the auditor as I feel there is a number of Brent officers, who when you ask a question instead of explaining their position, answer with an "officers know best “approach this is not good enough. In the next year or so I will be asked to vote through some horrendous cuts and I therefore believe I have every right and a duty to challenge officers’ views on whether this subsidy is legal and whether we can achieve better VFM.

On the issue of subsidy, I cannot accept without explanation your view, why the ratepayer can carry the burden of the disposal levy for a private contractor.  I intend to be at the Civic Centre tomorrow from 3pm hopefully meeting someone from Chief Finance Officer’s department.  If it’s possible I would appreciate meeting you or your member of staff.

On the 18^THJuly I met with the Chief Finance Officer. The Chief Finance Officer grasped the situation immediately and said he would get back to me. The following day I wrote to him confirming what we had spoken about.

Thanks for meeting me yesterday.

Just to confirm you will, make the change to the report and that change reflect that for every 1000 collections above the 17000 Brent will receive an extra £40,000, and if that service was to reach say 50% that the service would product an extra £500,000 approx. However you may not wish to spell it out in exactly that way.

On the 21^st July the day before the cabinet meeting the Chief finance office wrote back to me saying

Cllr Duffy

Thanks for your helpful comments

The report will formally be amended at the meeting to show the correct share of risk and opportunity in the contract, that is that we are guaranteed £400,000 and that the sales benefit of volumes above 17,000 accrue to us.

THE REPORT WAS AMENDED ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING

ORIGINAL REPORT

9.2 Veolia will retain any income collected over and above £400,000.

MY AMENDMENT
9.2 Veolia will also pass to the council any income collected over and above £400,000. 

This small (Duffy) amendment will make Brent an extra £500K. Last night it was announced by the lead member for environment that there are now 17,000 households signed –up and 100 households are signing up every day. That means Brent Council is getting an extra £20k a week and if it reaches 50%, the amendment will have earned Brent council £ 500K to spend on important services per year. I am very proud of what I achieved, I do things for Kilburn and Brent and for the Labour Party.

You may think Brent Council Labour group thanks me for this. No the leadership of Brent Council Labour group are unforgiving that I forced this amendment, they took me off all committees; many of the Labour group hardly talk to me or shy away. They seat me next to the Tory group (a fate worst than a fate worst than death) as they believe by forcing the amendment I undermined their authority. One member of the Cabinet accused me of bullying officers because I would not let it drop. I am not allowed to speak at full council. If I do members of the cabinet heckle me.

My fear is after all this hard work the (Duffy) bonus will be wasted on vanity projects from officers or members of the cabinet, which will not support the vital services Brent supplies like our home helps.

I am going away for a week’s rest, this blogging is tiring stuff, but I will be back the following week to show other interesting goings on at the council and maybe why St Patrick may not be coming to Kilburn next year and the tale of the missing nomination.

It is interesting that following my last blog about tagging my emails, one Labour councillor said they are right to tag my emails and it was my own fault………!

Kilburn councillor's attempt to represent residents thwarted by 'Big Brother' Brent officer action

A funny thing happen to me over the weekend, I received a email from a senior officer in Brent council, telling me about a meeting to discuss the HS2 train link running under Kilburn and the placing of the vent shaft.

The email said:

“Please accept this meeting request for discussions on the HS2 Vent Shaft issue that has arisen.

XXXX has called this meeting to ensure you all have the opportunity to be factually briefed on the issue, especially from the South Kilburn Regeneration perspective.

The meeting will be held at xxxxx. xxxxx (full address below). Please ask for XXXX XXXX upon arrival”.

I accepted the invitation to the meeting and believed I should inform the Chair of the local residents to highlight the fact that I was attending and therefore assuring them that their voice was being heard. So I forwarded the email to the Chair of the local residents a Mr F and merely added “FYI”. Believing that I had acted as a good councilor, I then prepared to enjoy my weekend.

However on Friday night I received this letter from a Senior Director, which he had cc the leader of the council. Saying that he noticed I had forwarded his email stating.

Dear Councillor Duffy,

This is a private briefing for the new MP, the Leader, and relevant Lead Members from the cabinet and ward councilors only. It isn't an open meeting for members of the public or wider party members. I would wholly expect one outcome of the meeting to be wider consultation and engagement on the issues and we can discuss the approach to this at the meeting.

Can I leave you to inform Mr F of this situation please?

Thanks - see you next week

I was initially taken back by what I saw of an invasion of my private correspondence with a Constituent. However it would seem that Brent council operate a system that traces any person to whom they have sent an invitation to and any other person that the recipient forwards it onto. This despite the fact that the email did not state it was private or secret.

Because of my concern about this I then forwarded this note to two other colleagues asking them to advise me about what I saw as intrusion into my private email correspondence with my constituents.

To my amazement I received another email from the Director, which was sent to all of the three of my constituents I had emailed. Which said:

Dear Mr P, Mr G, MR K,

I understand that you have been forwarded a notification of the above meeting by Cllr Duffy.

Regrettably this meeting is a private briefing for local politicians and therefore attendance is restricted and I am afraid that you won't be able to attend.

One of the purposes of the meeting is to discuss how we best engage and consult with the many different residents and partners who have an interest in this issue with a view to ensuring that everybody's voice is heard.  I will make sure you are all notified of the relevant consultation meetings when they are set up.

Many apologies for the misunderstanding.”

Summary

It is clear the officer involved believes he alone controls the meeting; his way of dealing with councilors is by dictating to them and believes he can instruct councilors to obey him, because presumably he is an officer

The way the officer has handle this situation and the tone of his emails is of great concern to me, it reeks of “big brother ” and his interference by directly emailing my constituents is frankly unbelievable. It is as if I had been a very “ bad boy “ and he is telling me off. It is condescending and I believe undermines the respect officers should show to elected representatives.

I am sure there are many Cabinet Members and Councilors, who believe they should just obey officers’ instructions and do what ever they say, and do not stand their ground. This officer seems to have confused me with one of them.

I was quite happy to attend the meeting itself. I never invited anyone else contrary to the officer’s wild allegation. This meeting is about the vent shaft for HS2.  There are two options being discussed: one in Queens Park  (next to the station) and the other in South Kilburn next to St Mary’s RC School in the middle of the regeneration area that has been blighted as a building site for the last nine years.

I however do not accept the implicit suggestion from these officers that this will be sited (as indicated in their first e-mail) in the South Kilburn regeneration area. These residents have lived on a building site for last 9 years and have been shafted by the Tory government over the years by cuts in services, the bedroom tax and family credits etc. So I will attend the meeting to do my best to ensure the residents of South Kilburn are not literally “Shafted” again by both the Tory Government and over zealous Officers.

The historical background to Kilburn that still affects us today

My Name is John Duffy and I am a local councillor for Kilburn (Brent) and I have set-up this blog to highlight issues concerning Kilburn 
 From Visit Wembley Website

Kilburn is situated on the south-eastern border of Brent, where the Roman Watling Street (Edgware Road) crossed the Kilburn brook. It may take its name from the Saxon for “cattle stream”.

Image courtesy of Brent Museum and Archives

The earliest inns in Kilburn, for example ‘The Cock’, appeared in the 15^th century. Kilburn acquired fame as the site of a spring, near ‘The Bell’. By 1733, it was the source of a cure for stomach ailments. The healing water was still being sold up to the 1840s and the ‘Bell’ (which had been called ‘Kilburn Wells’) remained popular as a tea garden thereafter. Kilburn was also notorious for duels in the late 18^th century, but was described as rural and tranquil in 1814.

The London & Birmingham Railway was built through Kilburn in 1837 and a station opened in December 1851. Public transport provision was completed by the Underground railway, which came to Kilburn with the opening of Kilburn Park Station in 1915.

Kilburn was rapidly built up in the 19^th century. In 1857 builder James Bailey began the Cambridge Gardens Estate near Kilburn Park. The population surged from 3,879 to 15,869 between 1861 and 1871. This led to divisions between the more urban south of Willesden parish and the more rural north. 

Tile-making was the earliest local industry, followed by brick-makers and a windmill. By 1890, there were also coachbuilders, bicycle manufacturers and a railway signal factory. Light engineering and printing were well established by 1914.

Edgware Road was named Kilburn High Road in the 1880s. It would eventually boast more than 300 shops. The largest cinema in Britain, the Gaumont State, opened in 1937 and is now used by an independent church.

Kilburn suffered considerable damage during the Second World War. After the war, industry was reduced and overcrowded or sub-standard housing in South Kilburn was replaced with flats. 

 Families were re-housed in the new South Kilburn Estate near Palmerston Road, which was completed c.1970-1971. Construction offered employment to Irish immigrants, and with the arrival of an Indian community, Kilburn gained a Hindu temple.

Kilburn is a multi-cultural area and from the early 1950s it was the home of a large Irish population earning it the name “county Kilburn”

Attempts at regeneration have been more successful in Kilburn than elsewhere, and the Tricycle Theatre has really put Kilburn on the cultural map