• the appointment panel did not adequately reflect the Harrow’s socio-political reality
• the appointees to the board were no strangers to Cllr Hall and included some friends like the Harrow chairman UKIP (also)
• no information about who else applied for but were not selected and why?
• not being elected, who the board members are accountable to?
• although the SNB would meet in public, it would not be the public meetings in the sense that contributions could be accepted from the public
• with no statutory powers or delegated authority, Harrow SNB is a toothless mechanism for local engagement value for money?

We believe it would be professionally sound for the new council to double check that the board appointments are fair and secure, and to ensure that the SNB is an open body, well placed to robustly serve its purpose which is to:

• ensure communities are more closely involved in problem solving and crime prevention;
• achieve greater coherence between different engagement mechanisms e.g. ward panels, Independent Advisory Groups, Neighbourhood Watch and Stop and Search Community Monitoring Groups, so as to provide greater public accountability in policing and crime reduction; and
• make more efficient use of resources to deliver value for money and target funds at issues of local concern and crime prevention

While the Harrow council machinery was consistently used to promote the environment-specific egos, the iffy use of the council resources under the short-lived Tory administration remained obscured. Few of these we report below in the public interest:
Harrow Safer Neighbourhood Board appointments under Cllr Hall watch included what appeared to be her friends like Harrow chairman UKIP (also) – this is now to be revisited

• £15,000 wasted on a paper exercise to investigate the alleged racism at the council to please Independent Labour Group who asked for the enquiry that added nothing to what was already known
• because of the political gains that the Tory group made and hoped for by fostering Independent Labour Group and using it to divide the Labour votes, the elected mayor-style minority Tory administration turned a blind eye to the ILG overspend (nearly £29,000) and let the ILG mayor ( Cllr Asante) overspend nearly £45,000 on public funds
• Like now, in 2010 voters voted in Labour administration to run the council
• In mid-2013, the breakaway Independent Labour Group, encouraged and supported by the Tory group, snatched the council administration from Labour because of what has been described as the personal grudge against some in the Labour group (which became highly toxic later)
• Few months later, the Tory group grabbed the council administration with the support of the well groomed Independent Labour Group who voted in the Tory group through a highly controversial process which created the political mess (i.e. a hung council where both the Labour and Tory groups had 25 councillors each, and Tory minority administration was in place because of the 8 ILG councillors)

Update: Figures speak louder.
Those defeated in Harrow are superficially boosting the election figures: the statistical fact is that the Independent Labour Group (ILG) average vote in the wards they contested is only 3.5 per cent compared with Labour’s 16 per cent steady average in 12 wards while Tory 18 percent only in 9 wards mainly because of its six strong wards, giving them 1 per cent lead across the borough!
But as Tories have majority support only in 9 out of 21 wards compared with Labour support in 12 wards, Labour share of votes carries more weight!

Notes:

• Like now, in 2010 voters voted in Labour administration to run the council
• In mid-2013, the breakaway Independent Labour Group, encouraged and supported by the Tory group, snatched the council administration from Labour because of what has been described as the personal grudge against some in the Labour group (which became highly toxic later)
• Few months later, the Tory group grabbed the council administration with the support of the well groomed Independent Labour Group who voted in the Tory group through a highly controversial process which created the political mess (i.e. a hung council where both the Labour and Tory groups had 25 councillors each, and Tory minority administration was in place because of the 8 ILG councillors)

Some real and not stitched-up Standards cases:
Conservatives
“Councillor Hall may benefit from training in media and interpersonal training and training in holding voluntary groups and public bodies to account” Decision Notice gov 008-039/ 442202 ( Link ),( Link )
“Councillor Mrs Nickolay had failed to comply with Section 3(1) of the Code of Conduct which provided that Councillors must treat others with respect” ( Link ) “Councillor Mrs Nickolay should send the complainant a written apology” ( Link )
Independent Labour Group
“RESOLVED ( Link ): That Councillor William Stoodley

1. breached Section 3(1) of the Code of Conduct by failing to treat the complainants with respect;
2. breached Section 5 of the Code of Conduct in bringing the office of Councillor and the authority into disrepute in respect of one of the complaints
3. be suspended from 9 March 2011 for a period of one month unless a letter of apology is sent to the relevant complainant before that date, the form of which to be to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Officer”

Further examples of the similarities between the Tory and Independent Labour groups characters!
In view of all this who could blame the voters who look for respect, integrity and professionalism and act accordingly!

• In 2010 voters voted in Labour administration to run the council
• In mid-2013, the breakaway Independent Labour Group, encouraged and supported by the Tory group, snatched the council administration from Labour because of what has been described as the personal grudge against some in the Labour group (which became highly toxic later)
• Few months later, the Tory group grabbed the council administration with the support of the well groomed Independent Labour Group who voted in the Tory group through a highly controversial process which has created the present political mess (i.e. a hung council where both the Labour and Tory groups have 25 councillors each, and Tory minority administration is in place because of the 8 ILG councillors)
• Council chief executive resigned and Harrow residents finished up with an elected-mayor style Tory administration with unsure and insecure leadership

For those interested in knowing about the dynamics of racism, Harrow presents a good study:

• “Harrow Council left with no party in control amid racism row”?” – BBC
• A local newspaper reported that members of Harrow Borough Council’s Independent Labour group at their press conference (last May) claimed there is ‘institutional racism’ within the authority’s Labour group – Harrow Times
• Previous chief executive wrote, “Separately complaints have been made in the press by the ILG (Independent Labour Group) about institutional racism”
• At the Council meeting in November last year, leader of the council announced an independent investigation into an allegation of racism – the above bullet points indicate how ‘institutional racism’ has been perceived and therefore the willingness for the investigation is understandable
• At the Harrow Council’s cabinet meeting last January, an update regarding the pending investigation into alleged institutional racism at Harrow Council was demanded

This March an announcement has been made that an investigation into alleged racism within Harrow Borough Council will be investigated by an Asian police officer, previously borough commander in Harrow
In setting the background of ‘a Review into Institutional Racism Complaints’, the terms of reference for the review say ‘Harrow Council is aware that a number of members of its staff and some elected members, have made allegations of potentially discriminatory behaviour, based upon their race’ – i.e. racism = ‘discrimination’; also the heading of the investigation is “a Review into Institutional Racism Complaints at Harrow Council“”.
The English language is quite specific about ‘racism’, ‘discrimination’, ‘review’ and ‘investigation’!
The language of the terms of reference and confusions within are enough to indicate that whatever is going to be built on a problematic base, is going to be problematic.
Also, such is the understanding of the institutional racism that the terms of reference say “not to cover Councillor complaints about other Councillors”, ignoring the fact that the councillor to councillor complaints are embedded within the structure and workings of the council and are covered through the Standards procedures which are progressed and implemented by the council, as an institution – can the council process be guaranteed not to harass and victimise?
We heard a councillor describing her experience of the Council processes as “use of Standards Committee where racial and gender stereotyping was used in the description of my conduct””.
Another case in point is the disrespect shown to the first African mayor at the new council meeting last year – we are not aware of any Standards action against those responsible for such an act.
We would not describe any officers “lousy”, as the ILG leader has said, but if someone says that there is a culture of fear after how the previous chief executive left, we might sympathise with that”.
We sympathise with the investigator who has to carry out such an institutionally defined and discredited ‘‘review’, especially in view of the ILG letter published last week (27.3.2014) that argues that his appointment will be neither independent nor professional.
The minority Tory administration had previously said that investigation into the allegations of racism at the council would be “independent””, most probably to keep the Independent Labour Group happy who keep the controversially installed leader of the council in power.
How an investigation could be “independent”” if the political arm of the body that has been accused of racism sets the terms of reference and appoints an investigator of its choice on behalf of the body! Experience tells that transparency, perception of fairness and credibility are crucial in addressing any dynamics of racism, which seem to be lacking in this case.
Many think that this ‘review’, close to the May council election, is no more than a pre-determined illusion to claim fairness and care for the diversity in the borough!

• Creating Opportunities for Economically Disadvantaged Producers – poverty reduction through trade forms and terms and by enabling producers to move from income insecurity and poverty to economic self-sufficiency and ownership
• Transparency and Accountability – in management and commercial relations, being accountable to all stakeholders
• Fair Trading Practices – recognizing the financial disadvantages producers and suppliers face
• Payment of a Fair Price – that has been mutually agreed by all through dialogue and participation
• Ensuring no Child Labour and Forced Labour is used in production
• Ensuring Good Working Conditions – providing a safe and healthy working environment, and good working hours and conditions
• Providing Capacity Building – to develop the skills and capabilities of the producers
• Promoting Fair Trade – through honest advertising and marketing techniques
• Respect for the Environment – using production technologies that seek to reduce energy consumption

• under ‘Cleaner’ – no specific reference to setting and achieving carbon reduction targets
• under ‘Safer’ – no specific reference to tackling prostitution – a well publicised attraction of Harrow
• under ‘Fairer’ – no specific reference to improving and protecting Arts & cultural heritage of the borough
• under ‘Effective organisation’ – no specific focus on the relationships with the regional and national governments despite Harrow’s frequent concerns about the allocation of grants etc – and of course ‘it is only the weak leaders who need a chief executive’