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 Julie on
-
This was a private and confidential deal between the employer and the employee. There was a binding agreement not to reveal terms. What Oakes did was pretty much the same as releasing somebody's medical history, disciplinary record, salary or private address to to the press. It was wrong, and opens the council, of which he is a member, to further legal action and further possible compensation.
If Oakes (or his friend Ron Aitken, who actually had a vote, because he was on the committee) did not like what was happening, or thought the package was too generous, or suspected that the employee's case warranted greater investigation, he should have reported it to the audit commission. Don't present him as some kind of hero! He took information and gave it to the press when he had a duty to tackle things through legitimate channels and a similar duty to keep confidentiality in respect of individual employees.
Is John Oakes still a school governor? If not, why not? Just ask. -
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THIS was a private deal as Julie says ... except for one inconvenient truth.
In this instance, we pay and employ the employer and that is the essential difference. Does the public have no right to question council spending? In the particular circumstances of this disgraceful deal, it is understandable that some wish to stifle discussion.
Is this evidence that the Local Government Minister is becoming concerned about the amount of money that local councils are awarding to themselves and to each other?
Poster PeterPiper previously made a pertinent point about a Judge recognising the link between our paying taxes and our involvement in ensuring money is well spent. Haringey has a history of spectacularly generous terms awarded to employees with whom it falls out – and enforce secrecy. Here are some questions to consider:
1) Did the “Compromise Agreement”, with gagging clauses, involve our taxes?
2) Was the multi-hundred thousand-pound pay-off in addition to up to one year’s “gardening leave”?
3) Was the payment in excess of £300,000, the size of a win on the National Lottery?
4) Were any Councillors involved in the employee’s complaint?
5) Would any Councillor attempt to whistle-blow and leak some of the background in a case like this, knowing there could be serious consequences for him or herself, if there were not the most serious issues at stake?
. -
-
-
Just some clarification on compromise agreements. I have worked on two recently. One was for £500 sick pay owed to a teacher who wanted to resign early and another was for £2000 in back pay for a teacher who had retired but been underpaid prior to retirement. In cases like these, the council tends to tie it up as a legally binding deal, to put an end to matters and ensure that nobody can come back for more later on. In fact, the only time an employee can do this if if the employer breaches the agreement by making the terms of it public. Likewise, if an employee tells anybody how much the deal was worth, they have to repay it.
-
-
Here's some more clarification, from today's London Evening Standard:
Haringey 'gagged' council chief with six-figure payoff
"Haringey council was facing fresh criticism today over a secret six-figure payoff it made to one of its senior officials.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was allegedly given the payment to stop an embarrassing "revelation" about Labour councillor Charles Adje becoming public at an employment tribunal. ..."
. -
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
In fact, Clive, no "clarification" at all in the Evening Standard. Just the same stuff which already appeared on HoL and the Council website.
►Evening Standard: "The deal can now be revealed after Haringey posted a series of documents relating to the leak on its website."
In fact, no new revelations. Just the same documents I linked to before. Long, very detailed reports which Haringey's independent Standards Committee decided should be put in the public domain.
► Evening Standard: "The documents, which have been highly censored . . ."
Not they have not. Among hundreds of pages there are a tiny number of blacked out words - redactions. Basically these protect the identity of the employee concerned.
► Evening Standard: The employee . . . "was allegedly given the payment to stop an embarrassing 'revelation' about Labour councillor Charles Adje becoming public at an employment tribunal."
As far as I can see from the papers, this is entirely speculation by Cllr Oakes - unsupported by the slightest evidence that the calculation was based on anything other than proper legal advice.
If you, Cllr Oakes, or Lynne Featherstone are convinced that this compromise agreement was excessive, why not take Julie's advice and refer it to District Audit for an objective professional view?
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on
-
Cllr Stanton has a lot to say about this case and is most supportive of the Council in not telling us, as taxpayers, who and why the employee, as Clive put it, deserved such a “lottery-sized” payout. I wonder if he personally knows the identity of the employee involved? It’s time for him to declare any interests he may have.
-
-
-
Very unlike 'our' Alan to be so quiet...
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I thought we'd all agreed that "lottery sized" was a bit tabloid and misleading. Even if you do put it in double quotes.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
