Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Councillor suspended; minor Lottery-sized win for ex-Haringey employee. Why?
I SEE the Haringey Independent carried stories here and here last week concerning the suspension of a local councillor over the leaking of secret council documents. The councillor admits leaking the documents but says he was motivated only by public interest.
There are worrying aspects to this case.
In particular, why was the council prepared to pay out an enormous sum of money in order to prevent a disgruntled employee’s claims being aired in an open forum?
The reasons must have been embarrassing indeed for a sum rumoured to be greater than £300,000 of council taxes to have been handed over. It seems that the council is free-spending with other people’s money where their own embarrassment is involved. Is there any practical limit to the cash the council is prepared to spend in In order to keep scrutiny and attention away from their dirty laundry?
The council, in the form of the deputy leader, seems remarkably sensitive about this case. Was there any involvement by other councillors in this case? What was the nature of their involvement?
This case appears to have all the hallmarks of cover-up of corruption and the punishment for the whistleblower sends the wrong signal to would-be whistle-blowers.
Don’t expect in-depth investigation about this in Haringey People, but I think we should be told.
There are worrying aspects to this case.
In particular, why was the council prepared to pay out an enormous sum of money in order to prevent a disgruntled employee’s claims being aired in an open forum?
The reasons must have been embarrassing indeed for a sum rumoured to be greater than £300,000 of council taxes to have been handed over. It seems that the council is free-spending with other people’s money where their own embarrassment is involved. Is there any practical limit to the cash the council is prepared to spend in In order to keep scrutiny and attention away from their dirty laundry?
The council, in the form of the deputy leader, seems remarkably sensitive about this case. Was there any involvement by other councillors in this case? What was the nature of their involvement?
This case appears to have all the hallmarks of cover-up of corruption and the punishment for the whistleblower sends the wrong signal to would-be whistle-blowers.
Don’t expect in-depth investigation about this in Haringey People, but I think we should be told.
Tags for Forum Posts: corrupt, cover-up, employee, employment, pay-off, secrecy, sleaze
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, what exactly are these “hallmarks”, please? What facts do you see in the newspaper story which make you so certain there was "cover up of corruption"; and "punishment for the whistleblower". As well as “sleaze” and “dirty laundry”?
As I read the two Haringey Independent news items, Cllr John Oakes admitted that he sent a confidential, 'exempt' Council report to the Evening Standard. He claimed this was in the "public interest". The Standards Committee - which has an independent chair and a majority of independent members - took a different view.
Do you think the existence of an ‘exempt’ confidential report automatically proves "sleaze" and "cover up"? If I or another councillor is given a copy of an exempt report, are we entitled to circulate it, or send it to the Press?
You say you’re worried about sending the “wrong signal to would-be whistle-blowers”. But who was the whistle-blower in this case? Cllr Oakes? Or the officer who spotted the exempt report in the quarantined emails? Isn’t the signal sent to staff by this case, that councillors are not ‘above’ the rules?
Cllr Oakes did not agree with the view of the Standards Committee, but he has accepted their judgement.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan thanks for your question about hallmarks.
The hallmarks are the depressingly familiar themes of council cock-up, scandal, cash-waste, cover-up and obsessive secrecy. This time, there are other extra and unusual factors involved as I think we both know, and it is presumably those aspects that the council has issued injunctions against the newspapers in order to keep the public from knowing.
Whistle-blowers: you ask an interesting question about who was the true whistle-blower in this case. Was it (a) someone who is employed by the council in the IT department and expected to monitor (snoop on?) councillors’ email accounts or was it (b) someone who had nothing to gain and indeed a lot to lose, by the actions of blowing a whistle. I suggest that, as with most whistle-blowers, the councillor had more in common with the latter.
Exempt material: probably the best-known recent example of the leaking of exempt material was The Telegraph’s publication of MP’s expenses. I wonder what you think about that exempt material? Was it a case of an outrageous leaking politician’s private affiars to which the public had no right to know? Do you regret that the whistle-blower in that case escaped a flogging by remaining anonymous? I'm sure that there are legitimate reasons for secrecy, but I wonder if you will allow that the secrecy process is capable of abuse?
£300,000+ of our taxes: I’m a little surprised that a rebel like yourself tries to limit discussion to the whistle-blower and avoid discussion of the activity over which the whistle was blown. Unless you are further out of the loop than I believe, we both know there is more to this story than just a pay-off of several hundred thousands of pounds to a council ex-employee.
Confidential reports don’t automatically prove sleaze. But, like yourself, I am not dependent solely on newspaper stories for information in general and this cover-up in particular. Like yourself, I am capable of making my own enquiries. But the Haringey Independent is the first instance of any newspaper being brave enough to reveal as much as they dare about Haringey Council’s latest scandal.
I think that, like yourself, Cllr Oakes is something of a renegade and not afraid to act when he senses wrong-doing and injustice, even if in so doing, he might break the rules. It is said that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. Wise folk balance immediate rules in front of them with higher principles and morality (which is not the same thing as saying rules are made to be broken). Would you always obey the rules, even where you thought that it would be immoral to do so?
Cllr Oakes will serve out his suspension and he has to live with that. But I note you focus solely on the whistle-blower and do not address the key question that I posed:
WHY was the council prepared to pay out an enormous sum of our taxes in order to prevent an employee’s claims being aired in an open forum?
Do you think that if and when details come out it will reflect credit on the council and those who sought to hush this up? Do you believe that the council can keep a lid on this?
.
-
-
Clive, we share a loathing for sleaze and corruption. But before making sweeping assertions I want evidence. Anyone can allege "cover-up" and "dirty laundry". It's much easier to click the SEND button and email documents to the Evening Standard, rather than ask questions and, brick-by-brick, build up a wall of solid facts.
I won't bullshit. I do know something about the background to this case. But I wasn't "in the loop" about the complaint nor the Standards Committee hearing. In fact I was surprised today to discover - when I asked for a copy of the report - that the Standards Committee hearing was in public and that the report is available on the council's website.
So no "bravery" was needed by the Haringey Independent "to reveal as much as they dare." They just sent along a reporter to the Standards Committee. HoL members can read the report for themselves here.
* N.B. * Unfortunately, you need a fast broadband connection to view or download as it's nearly 26 megabytes. (I've strongly complained several times about this ludicrous and entirely unnecessary file bloat on Haringey's website - including at least twice, to the Chief Executive.)
I've downloaded a copy and will read it carefully to see if there's any actual evidence for the points you raise, Clive.
-
Permalink Reply by BBL on
-
If you cannot get a response from the Chief Executive what chance have the rest of us?
-
-
Sorry if my comment was misleading, BBL, I did get 'responses' from the Chief Executive. These were prompt, courteous, and expressed broad agreement with my viewpoint. Unfortunately, no effective action has followed.
If you'd like copies of our email exchange I'm happy to send them. (I doubt that HoL members have a general interest in this topic.)
-
-
No you are ok.
I suppose if I wanted to discuss the issue of council departments failing to respond within timescales it should be discussed under another heading and not here.
-
-
Its clear that the suspended councillor knew he was breaking the rules, admitted it, accepted judgement and was punished. We know all that.
But there are related matters that remain in darkness and they involve a huge amount of our taxes. As a council-tax payer I remain puzzled about a pay-off of perhaps £300,000.
For a work-related injury, an employer or their insurer might be liable and be responsible for compensation. To put the size of the Haringey employee settlement into some kind of context, I looked up a personal injury calculator.
In order to come up with a figure equivalent to the "compromise agreement", as an injured employee what injury might you have to suffer?
.£ 187,500 – very severe brain damage
.. £ 55,000 – total deafness
.. £ 28,500 – total loss of sight in one eye
.. £ 22,000 – moderately severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
.... £ 5,500 – loss or serious damage to several front teeth
.... £ 2,150 – fractured ribs (maximum)
=======
£ 300,650 (all figures except last, average in the range)
I have seen no suggestion that the employee suffered physical injury but nonetheless, I sincerely hope that, whoever the employee was, they did not suffer any injury. But even the above list of comparative injury compensation may not equal the total awarded to the Haringey staff member. And this allegedly, in order to prevent the employee going to an employment tribunal and stating their case publicly.
Do any HoL subscribers have experience of employment matters or any knowledge of what could have led to a deal of this kind of size?
.
http://www.youclaim.co.uk/YouClaim_Compensation_Calculator.asp
-
Permalink Reply by Julie on
-
I know almost nothing about this case, though I've read the report Alan linked. As a local union rep, I have seen, and negotiated, exit packages for employees at first hand. My husband was made redundant from his job in Islington last year, when his post was deleted. My guess is that this was a redundancy, in the end, and a compromise agreement (see below.) The local redundancy agreement, (which is average in its generosity; an awful lot of local authorities, even Tory ones, actually give more) gives all employees made redundant between 50 and 60 a redundancy payment, based upon a week's pay for every year of service up to the age of 40 and a week and a half's pay after the age of 40. If the employee is between 50 and 60, the local government pension scheme gives automatic early access to pension and there is a scale of enhancement based on the length of time the employee has worked for Haringey. In some other local authorities it goes up to ten years or more with negotiation and pressure.
The estimated size of the deal could be based on the cost of enhancement (up to six and two thirds years' contributions added to the pension) for the rest of the employee's life, plus a redundancy payment, and maybe pay in lieu of notice of, say three to six months.
If this employee has lost her job between 50 and 60, the reasoning is that it's a very difficult task to find another job at that stage in life. This makes it fair to get early release of pension. She could have had a lump sum for redundancy and pay in lieu, and be receiving a fairly modest amount with rest of the £300K representing the cost of enhancement to the authority if she lives for another 50 years, at say £4-6K per year. These things always get talked up by the press. People in private pension schemes are envious of public sector pensions but they don't have the same envy of public sector pay, most of the time. Pensions are deferred earnings.
Nobody likes ET cases. Any settlement would have been tightly negotiated though. The issue for me is that it sounds as if there was a serious issue at the heart of this case which has not been dealt with. Sometimes it's better to walk away for the individual but the issue that caused the problem remains. Sometimes the employee is the problem and the costs of following disciplinary or capability procedures mean that a swift exit is a good idea.
-
-
Julie, I read with interest your first-hand experience with exit packages. From what we know, the package agreed – reportedly of several hundred thousand pounds, was as a result of a dispute or grievance rather than any redundancy aspect (the employee was threatening to go to a Tribunal, i.e. the grievance would be aired in public). It appears that there had already been one year’s gardening leave before the deal. Would you say this is typical or unusual?
It seems that no element of the pay-off was redundancy, but it does seem likely that the pay-off would include an amount for pension entitlement. Obviously we may never know what that element was. But even allowing for that, would you say that a pay-off of between a quarter and a third of a million pounds is unusual or typical or what?
Without identifiying them, are there any cases you know of, of this size? I am still trying to grapple with what grievance or dispute might be involved in order to be paid that amount out of public funds, in a lump sum, additional to 12 months gardening leave.
I completely agree that it sounds as if there is a serious issue at the heart of this case that has not been dealt with. In my estimation, you could not be more right with your hypothesis that the issue that caused the problem, remains.
.
.
-
-
I've seen quite modest deals costed at similar or higher amounts when the employee's life expectancy on a pension is factored in. If you deduct the salary the employee would have earned for the rest of her career it really wasn't a whistleblowing issue. I'd have a lot more respect for John Oakes if he'd blown the whistle on the 'why' rather than the 'how much.' And he's the employer, so breaching confidentiality is very serious and likely to result in further legal action.
The better the case, the bigger the deal, if you settle beforehand, generally. Also the weight of evidence is crucial. Don't forget very senior people get called as witnesses or asked to write lengthy statements. This is all time, and therefore money, too.
I have seen a lot of bad headteachers bought off in bigger deals, and it was worth every penny to avoid a lengthy and messy scrap. Other boroughs tend to pay more than we do, if my colleagues' experience is anything to go by. One neighboring Conservative authority is legendary for its gentlemanly generosity towards bad managers.
Garden leave is usually granted when there is a total stand off of some kind and it doesn't in my experience last as long as a year. However sick leave, or more likely stress leave, can last a long period of time, not all of it on full pay, of course. To be fair to the employee, it would be confidential if she was medically certificated for all or any of this time.
-
-
There's an old story, Clive, about a drunk who can't find his car keys under a lamppost. Why isn't he looking down the dark alley where he dropped the keys? Because: "The light is much better under the lamppost".
This case has nothing to do with personal injury, 'brain damage' etc. If you want to find out about something, look in the right place. Start, as Julie explains, with the law relating to redundancy and pensions. Then with the general principles used by Employment Tribunals to calculate awards.
Sure, it's complicated and maybe a bit dull. And "Council bosses follow legal advice!" isn't much of a headline.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
There also another old story about the boy who continually cried 'wolf'..
In the end no one was prepared to listen..
and he was gobbled up..
the moral of the story is....................................................................
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
