As I reported in an earlier post, Cllr Brickell had announced to a meeting of London Citizens that he was soon to be starting work as Director of Regeneration for the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) and that his new job would not prevent him from continuing in his Newham Council role as the mayor’s Executive Member for Olympics and Public Affairs.
The OPLC states on its web-site that Cllr Brickell began with them in October of last year. His title is Executive Director for Regeneration and Community Partnewrships. His key areas of responsibility are listed as: Regeneration, Equality and Inclusion, Business and Stakeholder Engagement and Arts and Culture.
His Council portfolio was originally listed as “Olympic Opportunities and Public Affairs”, with a banding of 3B and a time expectation of 2 days. This was still in place on the Council web-site in mid-November. On the 27th December I took a look at the portfolio and it has been changed to “Games Times and Public Affairs”. There is no banding and no time expectation but there is the following proviso: “This role is unique and the time expectations of the role are variable/not fixed. The portfolio holder is not claiming a Special Responsibility Allowance”.
The portfolio has been amended to a degree, with overt references to any involvement with the Olympic Authorities removed. [For anyone who may be interested, I’ve included the previous portfolio with the amendments at the foot of this post – changes to the original in bold italics, deletions in red]
So why the change? It is not beyond the bounds of reason to suppose that the mayor and Cllr Brickell had made the decision to amend the portfolio and do away with the allowance to prevent any suspicion that Cllr Brickell’s position with the OPLC and his Council portfolio constitute a conflict of interest. If that is the case, it says much about the mayor’s mindset.
But, whether or not Cllr Brickell receives an allowance for his Council portfolio and regardless of the change of wording, it’s still a difficult task - establishing an argument that supports the notion that there is no conflict of interest. In his OPLC role, Cllr Brickell is responsible for stakeholder engagement; in his Council role he’s the mayor’s key public affairs consultant. So, as the OPLC Executive Director for Community Partnerships, should he need to consult with Newham Council on any specific issue, no e-mail, no phone call, no specially arranged meeting, he can just sit and talk to himself.
It’s hard to fathom, if the “Game Time and Public Affairs” portfolio is so essential, why it has to be taken up by Brickell. There are plenty of new and able members on the Council (Ellie Robinson, David Christie, Firoza Nekiwala, Terry Paul, Gavin Pearson, Charlene McLean), surely one of these would be more than capable. More so as it has now been amended to no longer require an allowance.
It’s trust. Trust and patronage and political manoeuvring. The fact that the mayor’s cadre of advisors has changed very little from 2002 illustrates that he is only prepared to offer a cardinal’s hat to those who are close to him and those who serve without question.
It’s safe to say that, for the most part, it is well established that mayoral portfolios have next to no real value (as highlighted here, here and here,) and, although this latest play with words has seen the removal of a large allowance (a trend that one can only hope spreads across the entire pantheon of portfolios), it is a graphic example of how nonsensical mayoral portfolios are.
However, taking into consideration the mayor's ambitions to ensure his bid for influence over the future of the Olympic Stadium go to plan (albeit a costly influence), having a mayoral advisor sitting as an executive director on the OPLC (potentially Newham Council's future partner in the stadium) may be a very attractive proposition.
Were this any other local authority I doubt if Brickell would have been able to remain an elected member without some vociferous opposition, let alone stay on as a mayoral advisor – effectively, nothing less than a member of the Executive.
So why would Cllr Brickell go along with this. I doubt it has anything to do with money. Judging by the contracts the OPLC Chief Executive and Finance Director have with the organisation, I would hazard a guess that Brickell has similar contractual terms in relation to his period of employment. I don’t doubt that Brickell has ambitions to further his political career (and why shouldn’t he?) and I have been told that among some circles within Newham Labour he’s seen as Wales’ heir apparent. Spending another six years on the Council as a lowly back-bencher after many years as a member of the executive doesn’t look too good on the political CV.
Incidentally, at the time of writing this, Brickell has four mentions on the OPLC web-site. One provides a brief biography. Surprisingly, nowhere on the site does it mention he’s currently a sitting Newham councillor with an executive portfolio.
The Portfolio:
Role:
The primary purpose of this remit is to ensure that the appropriate legacy and opportunities for Newham residents arising from the Olympics and Paralympics is identified and maximised.
- Changed to:The primary purpose of this remit is to ensure an excellent Games Time, for the benefit of Newham residentsTo have oversight of the Olympic and Paralympic games: the vision, strategy and offer leading up to the games, at games time and the legacy. - Removed.
To use the opportunities afforded by the Games over the next two years to identify and work with potential inward investors who are seen as an appropriate fit in Newham. - Removed.
Support the Mayor in public affairs work. - Remains.
Priorities:
Olympic and Paralympic games: - this Sub-heading changed to Games Time.
To build and maintain appropriate relationships with the five host boroughs and key Olympic bodies (the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the Olympic Park Legacy Company and the Olympic Delivery Authority). – Removed.
To ensure a successful games time (including asset maximisation, inward investment and, working with the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Strategic Planning, to ensure technical and operational readiness).
To ensure a successful Games time experience for Newham residents. – Remains.
To seek to develop a broad political agreement over the nature of the inward investment which should be targeted over the next two years – Removed.
To support the Mayor with the Cultural Olympiad. – Removed.
To guide sporting, cultural and volunteering opportunities and events provided in the lead up to and during the Games. – Remains.
Using the Games to generate appropriate inward investment to Newham: [this section has been removed]
To develop and deliver a clear and agreed vision, strategy (including prospectus) and offer for inward investment to the borough. – Removed.
To effectively promote investment opportunities in Newham. – Removed.
To effectively promote social enterprise in the borough and to work with Cabinet Members and partners to identify opportunities and networks. – Removed.
To work effectively with other Cabinet Members to drive forward benefits for Newham residents. - Removed.
Public affairs: [this section remains]
to support the Mayor in building and maintaining strong relationships with relevant and appropriate local, regional, national and international groups. – Remains.
To promote Newham’s vision through effective networking and lobbying for the benefit of residents.- Remains.
Special arrangement: [this section has been removed]
To advise the Mayor and Executive Member for Health on strategic health relationships. – Removed.
To advise the Mayor and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People on the strategic development of the BSF programme and the potential benefits from the relationships with the LEP. - Removed.
Regular activities: [this section remains]
To monitor workload and performance against targets in agreement with the Mayor and to provide regular activity updates to the Mayor. - Remains.
To communicate with officers by mutually agreed methods to ensure timely and appropriate political direction. - Remains.
To work with the Community Executive and Community Lead Councillors to ensure an understanding of community views and to ensure that they are represented in this portfolio remit. - Remains.
To speak at appropriate conferences and events as appropriate. - Remains.
To attend scrutiny commissions as necessary to inform on appropriate policies and activities and advise the Mayor on specific responses as and when necessary. - Remains.
To ensure full answers are given to all appropriate questions to Council/the Mayor is able to respond on all reports to Cabinet/Mayoral proceedings - Remains.
14 comments:
I am, perhaps naively, inclined to take a positive view of Paul Brickell's decision to continue to put his expertise and experience (not to mention his contacts and his influence at OPLC) at the disposal of Newham without any further cost to the public purse.
But one might enquire as to why Cllr Brickell is giving up his special responsibility allowance when the Mayor himself continues to draw £10,000 a year (on top of his regular salary) as a director of LOCOG.
Brickell has commendably declined to be paid twice for doing the same job - shouldn't the mayor do likewise?
Thanks for commenting Martin,
I’m relatively ambivalent towards Brickell and his motives; much the same as I am with a number of sitting councillors who were on the Council when I was a member. They are very intelligent and articulate individuals whom one would expect to be champions of openness and transparency in governance. I think it is regretable that they have all made the decision to indulge the current mayor.
I do genuinely think Paul should be congratulated for securing his new post with the OPLC.
The issues with this particular situation seem to me to be as follows: first, only the credulous would think that Paul should not, as you state it, put his expertise and experience, and his contacts and influence at the OPLC, at the disposal of Newham; I don’t think there is anything wrong with him doing that. What I am at odds with is the seeming need for him to retain a title within the Council administration to do so.
If there is a genuine requirement for the Mayor to have an executive member for the Olympics (or “Games Time”), why not reallocate the portfolio to another LABOUR councillor? During my time as a Labour member in Newham there was always much talk about bringing on new talent and developing the civic leaders of the future and that was all it was, talk. It appears very little has changed in the seven years since I left the Party.
The problem with this is that Wales would have to put someone in a position where they will have the capacity to ask questions and get answers. Although I am sure he is fairly confident he can keep the Labour Group in check under the status quo, stirring up that mix may create a dynamic on Group that is less malleable.
The second is the fact that the Mayor appears to be intent on handing over £40,000,000 of Newham funds to buy into having some sense of ownership in the Olympic Stadium post the Games. So far, the media are pointing to Newham entering into a partnership with the OPLC.
That Brickell has a “seat” on both organisations and both are, or will be, entering into negotiations over the finer details of the stadium, may well be enough to prompt some to question the wisdom of his keeping his position on the Council while being retained by the OPLC as the Executive Director for Regeneration and Community Partnerships.
I don’t think this would be an issue if Newham Council (or even Cllr Brickell) were forthcoming with the details behind the decision to purchase a major stake in the stadium. To this day, the people of Newham are still in the dark as to the supposed benefits of investing £40,000,000 of their money into the stadium and there has been no attempt by the Mayor or anyone else from the Authority to explain what makes the project financially feasible.
So forgive me if I don’t join you in taking a positive view on Paul’s altruism.
Mike,
I absolutely agree that there has been a complete lack of transparency from the mayor and councillors about the supposed benefits of our £40m investment in the Olympic stadium. The council really needs to open up on that.
Of course, Paul Brickell has to be extremely careful to avoid any suggestion that he is somehow on both sides of the table during any negotiations about the stadium. If he is unable to do that he will have to resign one of the two positions. The obvious answer is to recuse himself from any discussions.
You are better placed than me to comment on the internal politics of the Labour group, but it is disappointing that it seems to be the same old faces surrounding the mayor. As you say in your post, there are young and capable new councillors who should be being promoted.
I am old fashioned but surely this issue is no different from any Member holding outside interests in, for arguments sake a Directorship of a company or Board Member of any organisation outside of the Council. The essential question has to be, when the **** hits the proverbial fan which side of the divide will the Member opt for. "Win,win" arguments do not cut this ice.
I am unclear as to the legal position of OPLC officials (in companies Directors have a legal duty to their shareholders) nonetheless the essential issue remains. "To whom would the Councillor owe his primary duty". Local Government SHOULD operate on a system of checks and balances not only to ensure that the public interest is served but is also SEEN to be served without any doubt.
Traditionally this is served by the Member declaring an interest and taking no part whatsoever in a Council decision (that includes speaking, voting and decision-making). It would not be sufficient for him to simply not take part in detailed discussions between the Council and OPLC. He would, in effect take no active role in matters concerning this or people would have to wonder "which hat is he wearing today".
In this circumstance one is left wondering what value, if any, is preserved by this dual role. Transparency is a term oft bandied about by the Council. Of course, as ever, the devil is in the detail. In this instance it is unclear how any plausible or identifiable transparency can be delivered.In the interests of Newham and himself I think Mr. Brickell needs to decide between one or the other.
In the case of the Mayor it seems to me that he should not be personally accepting money directly from OPLC for similar reasons (no doubt he has secured legal advice to the contrary) - I am sure there are established mechanisms whereby the expenses element could be charged and reimbursed in an appropriate manner through the Council machinery and I am confident that there are many local organisations struggling for cash that would be more than eager to accept a charitable donation (photo opportunity missed - unusually).
Anon 10:54
I think you make a persuasive case, but when I said Cllr Brickell would have to recuse himself from any discussions I meant (and clearly should have said) ALL discussions.
As a point of clarification, Sir Robin received a fee of £10,000 last year as director of LOCOG (and £7,000 the year before). Although he is also on the board of OPLC, he receives no payment for that (see page 21 of their 2010/11 annual report).
Surely the issue re Sir Robbingusblind is he is paid as FULL TIME Mayor for which he alreadt draws a considerable (and annually inflated) salary; he presumably only sits on LOCOG because of his role as Mayor and therefore is being paid twice for doing the same job?
Random Blowe made the point recently that by contrast the government rep who is also a non exec director does not draw a salary / allowance because he is already being paid to be there as part of his job. But then guess who chairs the LOCOG renumeration committee? No conflict of interest intended!?
Anon 10:12,
I agree with you and Kevin Blowe about that, as I said clearly in a comment on his blog at the time:
"Sir Robin is paid £81,000 a year to be the FULL-TIME mayor of Newham.
"Either he is short-changing us by doing outside work or, if his role on the LOCOG board is to the benefit of Newham people, he is being paid twice for doing the same job.
"Being the generous sort, I think the latter is the case. The £10,000 fee should either be waived or paid to Newham."
In my previous comment here I was simply clarifying that Sir Robin isn't "personally accepting money directly from OPLC" which the previous Anon (also you? I obviously can't tell for sure) said he was.
I hope that makes my position completely clear.
I may be a little confused here but I'm sure that when I used to work in local government many years ago there was a standard practice, embedded into the Code of Conduct, that insisted that senior officers should not be "employed" in any other role.
I'm therefore a little surprised that Mr Brickell should be employed by any public body whilst receiving funds for his work at another public body. It wasn't just a matter of allowances or monies received but rather part of the post war settlement, an underlying social, moral and political philosophy which recognised the potential damage to local government if public service was seen as something done for personal gain as opposed to the public good.
I don't know Mr Bricknell, he may indeed be an extremely dedicated individual with exceptional talents. However I strongly suspect that like many of his fellow middle class Labour professionals he was singularly well placed to take advantage of the greater opportunities which came their way after 1997.
And the most depressing aspect of the behaviour of this new group was their ambition and greed. Their cynical opportunity hoarding more than matched the appalling behaviour of the Tories in the eighties.
You'll have to forgive me for my cynicism here, but this is perhaps more a reflection of my own sadness and disappointment. I really did expect better from elected Labour party representives. I honestly didn't expect such "entrepeneurial entryism".
However, having talked to many friends who continue to work in local government it seems to be the general view that the majority of new councillors these days consider local politics as either a stepping stone to a national political career or as a way of enhancing their existing social and/or business prospects.
And what better way of acheiving these aims could there possibly be than having an elected mayor and cabinet system within a one party regime?
The allowance may have been changed or not paid but there is still a conflict of interest, --he is doing the same sort of thing for two different organisations at the same time.
Also , and this is not covered by your posting or the other comments, it is a bit of a coincidence that he was paid Adviser for the Olympics and then later gets this senior job with the OPLC . A case of revolving doors(?), -I thought there were rules covering this sort of thing ? E.g at least leaving a time gap
The rules referred to are for officers (revolving doors) not for Members I believe.
The October 2010 Newham Council Constitution is available on the Council website. http://www.newham.gov.uk/yourcouncil/hownewhamisgoverned/standardscommittee.htm This governs the conduct of business by the Council and the conduct of Members.
In the protocols for Members there appears the following:
"Selflessness
Members should serve only in the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
Honesty and Integrity
Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned. Members should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour."
The Constitution further states,
"5.1 You have a personal interest in any business of the authority where either:
(a) it relates to or is likely to affect:
(i) any body of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the authority;
(ii) any body:
(aa) exercising functions of a public nature;
(iii) any employment or business carried on by you;
If you have a personal interest, the Constitution requires,
", where you have a personal interest in any business of the authority and you attend a meeting of the authority at which the business is considered, you must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent"
It goes on to discuss "prejudicial interest" stating,
"Subject to paragraph 7.2, where you have a personal interest in any business of the authority you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest."
It goes on to outline the exclusions for this:
"You do NOT have a prejudicial interest in any business of the authority where that business:
(a) does NOT affect your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described in section 5 above;"
Clearly this would not appear to be the case.
Where a prejudicial interest exists the procedure is as follows:
"
(a)you must withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting considering the business is being held:
(i)in a case where paragraph 9.2 applies, immediately after making representations, answering questions or giving evidence;
(ii)in any other case, whenever it becomes apparent that the business is being considered at that meeting;
unless you have obtained a dispensation from the authority's Standards Committee;
(b)you must not exercise executive functions in relation to that business; and
(c)you must not seek improperly to influence a decision about that business.
9.2 Where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of the authority, you may attend a meeting (including a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or of a sub-committee of such a committee) but ONLY for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise."
I hope this is helpful.
Anon 17th Jan 14.08 , --thank you for a very Offical sounding response.
Rules around revolving doors may not formally apply to Councillors, but where that Councillor is in an Exec. position that is a close call in terms of fact,and frankly, the same (as an Officer),-- in terms of the "spirit" of, and maybe the perception (an important aspect of conflict of interest rules)of, --the rules.
Further,-- but politiclly rather than legally,--- if as you suggest, a prejudical interest would never arise with respect to the allowance devoid Cllr Brickell, --why have this Exec. position at all ?
Sorry if it sounded official - I was merely quoting extracts from the 145 page long Council Constitution as this is the document that would come into play at the Council end. Since I sat down and read it do I qualify for a gold medal - lol.
At the OPLC end there may well be "employee" rules biting in as well (at least there should be in my view). I agree with you - the Council rules seem to have been drafted for an era in which a Councillor was unpaid and should better reflect the (high) paid nature of Newham's Executive.
In the case of Mr. Brickell, if he, or the body he is working for, have money at stake (either money from the OPLC to him, or from the Council to OPLC) then it seems to me that he cannot claim he does not have a prejudicial interest under this part of the Constitution.
"You do NOT have a prejudicial interest in any business of the authority where that business:
(a) does NOT affect your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described in section 5 above;"
- remove the double "not" and you DO have a prejudicial interest if it affects your financial position or "body" (OPLC) - ie his "salary" and £40m. Sorry if I gave the opposite impression.
And I agree with you - there seems little or no point in having Mr. Brickell in this Exec post (unless the Constitution is sidestepped)as I suggested in an earlier post. It should be someone else.
It seems to me that, if the constitution is sidestepped, it will add yet another layer of murk on the already murky and high profile past of the Council and the Olympics - can someone explain how having the name of Newham in national headlines about suspicious dealings enhances Newham's reputation?
By the way, the constitution also states that the same rules also apply to the Mayor. Interesting.
Anon 18th Jan 10.44, thanks for this --for a moment I thought he previous post was in fact a Council response !
I agree that all is murky ,by layers, around this.
Was there not a case, last year , that went to the Council's Standards Committee , only to be thrown out,-- even by them !?
This case had some common ground with what we are discussing here,the common ground being --what is a conflict of interest or not ?
That case ---which is on the Council website, concerned a Councillor who in effect said "Who me Guv ?" about a business featuring both his son and brother that has (or had) dealings with the Council and the Labour Party.
As in Councillor Brickells case "Who me Guv , not me Guv , completely diffferent Guv ?etc " seems to be an acceptable answer.
However, and this is the boil down of both cases, --what is the PROBABLITY of "Not me Gov, etc ?
Kevin Blowe has posted about the increasing amount of scrap metal (Metal "trees", and that "Orbit" thing ) in and around the Olympic site.
However there is some good news for anyone concerned about the obvious waste of public money on this ****.
They can ask:
1) Paul Brickell , A Director of OPLC
2) Cllr Paul Brickell "Olympics Games Time Adviser (or whatever )
As there is no conflict of imterest between the two, -- there should be two bites at the cherry to get an answer.
Post a Comment