Tag: Institutional racism

Havering’s Institutional Racism Report

The suppressed report has been published three years late.1 It’s virtually unreadable.

The all-important pay gap is analysed, “Work needed to be done to assess if there is an ethnic pay gap and what that means.”2 Career progression is poor because, “The senior levels of the organisation are not a very diverse representation hence why these views may be held.”3 (my emphasis) (see addendum)

The report reveals their racial biases, which they would probably deny having. Institutional Racism occurs when decision-makers have biases,

“….which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions – reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn.”4

Institutional racism emerges from homogenous groups enforcing toxic biases. BAME candidates are judged prior to interview; their in-service performance is derided and complaints are unrecognised as legitimate.

Objective Area 2 7:1, says,

“The political and executive leadership have publically (sic) committed to reducing inequality, fostering good relations and challenging discrimination.”5

These aspirations are inspiring but have cabinet members and senior management the humility to implement them? Humility because they must reflect deep and hard about their actual racial preferences. Can leopards change their spots?

The Romford Recorder  worked tirelessly for publication and the council worked equally hard to prevent publication. When it was published the Recorder said,

“Havering released a redacted and unenlightening version of the investigation, containing none of the allegations the LGA had referenced.”6 ‘Unenlightening’ is code for saying they believe it’s been censored.

Havering’s CEO says the report doesn’t reflect the Council today. Let’s hope his assessment isn’t a self-serving delusion.

Addendum: Diversity

Cabinet: There are nine cabinet members all of whom are white, elderly or middle-aged. Seven of them are men.

Executive Directors: There are four directors, including the CEO.7 All four are white with two women. There is no information about their qualifications or where they were awarded.

Notes

1 READI Review – Havering self-assessment

2 p16 NB Pages aren’t numbered and page numbers come from my page counter

3 p17

4 What is institutional racism? – Institute of Race Relations

5 READI Review – Havering self-assessment p332

6 Why the Romford Recorder fought to uncover racism dossier | Romford Recorder

7 Executive Leadership Team | London Borough of Havering

Havering’s Cabinet Meeting, 9th October 2024

The meeting dealt with awarding contracts. Every officer recommendation was agreed. Scrutiny was provided by Keith Prince who did a manly job. This was especially the case with the award of a Housing IT contract, Item 8.1

Keith (1:04)2 focused on the price range,

“Indicative Market Comparison Costs……Based on the extensive market assessment across eight suppliers it is estimated that the total value of the contract will be within a range of c.£970,000 to £2.4m for the potential seven year life cycle of the software …..(results of market assessment across eight suppliers)”3

There is a 147% range between lowest and highest. Keith found this curious. Just how could there be such an enormous variation for the same performance? The complex story took an interesting turn when the director of finance said she could vary these prices by a further half million pounds under delegated powers. Taking the lowest indicative price, that was a further 51%. Reading the cabinet’s ‘body language’, it was obvious they didn’t know about her delegated powers. (The papers will be rewritten reflecting this insight.)

Keith did an excellent job at this meeting.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Ray Morgon’s attempt to suppress the Institutional Racism report hit another road block4 when the appeal against the Freedom of Information Tribunal judgment failed,

A judge ruled that the council’s grounds for trying to cover up the 400-page dossier were “inarguable” and had “no realistic prospect of success”. 5 (my emphasis)

He’s a sucker for punishment and might appeal against this judgement. The lawyers are loving it. Havering’s library users are less happy.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 09/10/2024 19:30 p97

2 Time is based on the webcast

3 loc.cit. p99

4 Institutional Racism and Havering Council – Politics in Havering

5 Information Tribunal rejects Havering Council racism dossier appeal | This Is Local London

Havering’s Cabinet Meetings: 11th September and 18th September, 2024

Item 6: 11th September

Assure Havering residents that the Council takes Hate Crime seriously and has robust mechanisms in place to help combat/reduce such behaviour; and · Inform victims and witnesses about the various support options currently available, including how to contact those specialist agencies.1,2 (my emphasis)

The government requires councils to have *Hate Crime* policies. The policy is for Havering’s housing tenants. Paul McGeary (36 minutes)3, read a statement. He has no enthusiasm, it’s as if it’s an unwelcome chore. Keith Darvill (42) worried about costs. When told there were no additional costs he was still worried, which was surprising.

The schizophrenic cabinet endorsed this policy whilst paying a fortune to a King’s Counsel (KC). The KC will try to sustain the council’s position on the suppression of their report on racism amongst council employees.2 Institutional racism, of course, is a hate crime. The report will be uncomfortable and unwelcome. It is, in the words of the Tribunal which decided the Romford Recorder’s Freedom of Information request, “of overwhelming public interest”.4 Therefore, it should be published.

Item 10: 25th September

This item is a Performance Report on the Council. The ‘score card’ categories are as follows:

“· Red = Below target and below the ‘variable tolerance’ of the target

  • Amber = Below target but within the ‘variable tolerance’ of the target
  • Green = Above annual target.”5

The outcome isn’t flattering, with 41% being RED and a cause for concern.

Interestingly the IT document transmission failed and Opposition leaders only received a summary report. Keith Prince (1:32) believed it should be made public. Reading the Leader’s *Body Language* this is unlikely to happen.

Councillors spent three minutes (from1:31) on this item. Chummy cabinet meetings, with lots of bonhomie, are a tragic wasted opportunity. The public is ill-served when a 41% failure rate is shrugged off without comment.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 18/09/2024 19:30 (havering.gov.uk) p579

2 Institutional Racism and Havering Council – Politics in Havering

3 Annotator Player (mediasite.com) Times refer to this webcast. There wasn’t any sound until this item. This gelled with the members’ criticisms about the poor Council’s IT interface.

4 Havering Council seeks appeal over racism report ruling | Romford Recorder

5 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 25/09/2024 19:30 (havering.gov.uk) p184

Institutional Racism and Havering Council

Several years ago, there were disturbing allegations of Institutional Racism amongst officers of the Council. A report was commissioned to uncover the truth. The report was completed three years ago and it sustained those allegations. The Conservative Administration of Damian White rejected demands for publication. Ray Morgon, the Leader of the Opposition, demanded the report be published. A campaign began led by the Romford Recorder who put in a Freedom of Information request.

For three years the Council resisted that Freedom of Information request.

The Romford Recorder1 has won a court case demanding publication of the report. The Council won’t publish and it continues to fight the Recorder. Institutional Racism is an insidious ‘Hate Crime’, which rots trust in the workplace and community.

“The council was ordered in August to disclose a 400-page dossier of evidence to the Romford Recorder within 42 days, after we won a legal action on behalf of our readers…Information Tribunal judges ruled that the council was not entitled to suppress the document as its contents were of overwhelming public interest.”2 (my emphasis)

HRA’s response is to continue resistance by hiring a King’s Counsel for an appeal.

The appeal is lame. Firstly, it wants to protect other councils, which is a specious justification and a waste of Havering taxpayers’ money.

Secondly, they claim the document is “historic” and therefore misleading. It’s historic because the council have fought tooth and nail to prevent publication.

Thirdly, the document is inflammatory, which “….risks fracturing community cohesion in the borough at a time when the national temperature is heightened.”3 Really?

Assuming the Recorder has faithfully recorded the Chief Executive’s justifications for the appeal, its chances of success are slim, and very expensive.

Council officers oppose publication because they fear reputational damage. However, it is Conservative and HRA politicians who are preventing publication, not officers.

Questions:

1) Are any perpetrators still employed by Havering?

2) Was compensation paid to any victims?

3) Did the council demand No Disclosure Agreements from any employee in relation to the findings of this report?

4) Were any councillors named in the report?

Notes

1 Havering Council seeks appeal over racism report ruling | Romford Recorder

2 loc.cit.

3 loc.cit