Brian Coleman: How to be badly behaved, in Broken Barnet, and get away with it

Updated below:
 
It is fair to say that there is a certain amount of curiosity about the unique phenomenon that is the Barnet blogosphere, and one question which is often asked of us is how the whole business began, and why. 

Well, the point at which the disparate voices of the local bloggers came together to form our now infamous chorus of disapproval was in response to an action which really marked the first sign of madness in the current Tory council administration, and one which happened almost as soon as the party was returned to office in May 2010. 

This was, of course, the vote to increase the already very generous councillors' allowances, an act of breathtaking arrogance which was accomplished by stealth - or would have been, if the attempt to slip the plans onto the agenda at the dead of night as an 'emergency' motion had not been spotted by an eagle eyed blogger - and the self awarded pay rise was approved by the Tories at the same meeting at which the leader lectured listeners on the need for savage budget cuts at a time of austerity. 

The rank hypocrisy of this shameless trousering of even more of Barnet residents' council tax, was supported by each and every Tory councillor - except for one very brave woman, Kate Salinger, who abstained from the vote on a point of principle, as her conscience would not allow her to support such a move. She was then treated abominably by her fellow Tory councillors, who voted instantly and unanimously to remove her from a number of council positions she occupied, one by one, in an act of odious, malicious vengeance and public humiliation. 

Kate Salinger, by the way, is one of the councillors for the Friern Barnet area. It is an extraordinary coincidence, is it not, that the decision to close a library should have been in the very ward she represents, along with Labour councillors?

The then Tory whip, Councillor Brian Coleman, was happy to be quoted after the appalling treatment shown  to Cllr Salinger at the meeting, informing a local reporter that this repellant behaviour was perfectly justified:

“That’s discipline for you. It’s the democratic process in action.”

Interesting, isn't it? Very keen on discipline, Councillor Coleman. For others. 

And an obligation to take part in the democratic process is apparently also something which applies to others, but not himself. 

And now look where we are, two years later. Councillor Brian Coleman is still a councillor, although he has lost his Cabinet post, and oh dear, his seat on the London Assembly, and, alas he is no longer Chair of the London Fire Authority. How the mighty have fallen ... the democratic process is to blame, of course, for all that. With a little help from his admirers amongst the blogosphere, and the shopkeepers of Broken Barnet, still reeling at the blow to their businesses caused by Coleman's lunatic parking scheme.

As for party discipline ... well, here is an odd thing.

Councillor Brian Coleman is currently on bail, pending police investigations into an allegation of common assault involving a woman in North Finchley which led to his arrest last month.

He has not been suspended from his duties, and the leader of the council, Richard Cornelius has justified this on the basis that the councillor is innocent until proven guilty. Indeed he is, and he may or may not be charged with an offence in relation to this alleged incident, but it is hard to understand why no suspension has been enforced, while investigations continue. The alleged offence is one of assault, and one might reasonably expect the council, with no implication of guilt, to remove any individual arrested on suspicion of this type of alleged offence from contact with members of the public, just as it would with a council employee.

There are other difficulties presented by Councillor Coleman's recent behaviour which are not a question of allegation, but fact, and yet have not been subject to the process of disciplinary procedures by the Conservative group, or if they have, the leader of the group has failed to reassure the residents of this borough that such procedures have been instigated.

Earlier this year Coleman was found to have breached the members code of conduct in the course of abusive emails he sent to two correspondents, referring to an Israeli resident as an 'anti-semite' and comparing a female resident to Mosley's 'blackshirts'. After an unsuccessful appeal, the sanction to write apologies has been ignored, yet no action has been taken, and again, no suspension has ensued, even though, in this case, the case is proven.

Not only has no apology been received, Coleman was quoted in the Standard as claiming that he was:

 “... under no obligation ... This was a matter dealt with by the flawed Local Government Standards regime, now abolished.” 

At the same time, in his idiotic new blog Coleman even joked about being determined not to wear 'sackcloth and ashes'. In other words, he appears to be refusing to make any apology.

The victims of Coleman's insulting remarks in this case were not informed by Barnet Council that the deadline for an apology had been passed: in fact it was Mrs Angry who told one of the parties in September, who then contacted the Monitoring Officer. There has been no further response after an initial reply.

At the last full Barnet council meeting, Coleman disgraced both himself and his party by making deeply offensive remarks to residents in the public gallery, (including Mrs Angry) jeering at them, calling them:

 'the sad, mad and bad, and a couple of old hags'. 

 He also named and referred disparagingly to a local council union official. 

The Tory leader has refused to condemn these highly insulting remarks, and indeed despite the private criticisms of one or two of the more decent party members, no Conservative councillors has had the courage to speak out in public. Not one.

 Complaints about this incident have been submitted, including one from Mrs Angry, but in her case, following an enquiry to the Monitoring Officer, more than a month ago, regarding the procedure, no response whatsoever has been made, even after a further request last week. 

The query raised was in regard to the allegations that the leader and deputy leader, as well as other Cabinet members were seen to be laughing and applauding Coleman's insulting jibes: the emasculated new standards regime depends on the judgement of party leaders - who is to decide on a complaint when the leader and his senior colleagues are also said to be implicated? Stony silence.

a scene from the childhood of Brian Coleman? Unlikely.


A further incident involving Coleman is the complaint made by a resident at a committee meeting after the councillor was reported to have said:

 'you've had your answer, now clear off',

and then, it is claimed, he called him a 'twat' (there were children present) after presenting a public question ...

This incident was filmed, and this footage and other evidence was submitted to the Monitoring Officer in May, yet by the end of September the complainant was obliged to ask why he had heard nothing further. 

He was told that, despite the subsequent four months of inaction, the investigation was of course 'very much current', and would he like to come for a chat to discuss his complaint and evidence? Clearly nothing has been done in the meanwhile, one would imagine in breach of any reasonable expectation of the processing of a complaint. Yet again, in other words, a complaint in regard to Coleman's behaviour has been effectively ignored.

Additionally Mrs Angry believed that the matter of the allegation that Councillor Coleman misused his free parking permit in April is only now being processed. A witness this weekend claimed to have been asked, as in the previous case, to come now for a nice chat about his complaint. Why only now?

There is also the small matter of the indemnity which was given to Coleman by the council to cover costs when fighting his complaint in regard to the 'anti-semitic' smears made in the emails: as he has lost the case, he should repay this to the tax payers who bailed him out, albeit temporarily. An article in the local Times of 3rd October stated merely:

Barnet Council confirmed it would only cover the legal costs of a members' appeal hearing if they were successful. 

Has this money been repaid, then, or not? If it has, should we not be informed about it? and if not, why not, and what are they going to do about it?

Even more outrageously, at a Cabinet Resources committee meeting this week, our Tory councillors are proposing to quadruple the amount in cost that can be covered by an indemnity - a press release from Labour leader Alison Moore today expresses what will be  widespread view: 

'this is a ridiculous amount of money ... At a time when Library services and services to vulnerable children and the elderly are being slashed by the council, should this really be a priority? ...' 

Such generosity is clearly inappropriate, but to propose such a measure at this particular point, surrounded as we are by so many allegations of behaviour that if true are utterly unacceptable in any person holding public office: this is simply another insult aimed at the residents of this borough, who must expect to put up with any abuse from their elected representatives, and then offer them a loan to defend themselves against any complaint, while the victims of such alleged behaviour must fund their own legal costs.

Mrs Angry understands that senior Conservative party politicians are utterly fed up with the constant embarrassment caused by the antics of the troublesome Tory Brian Coleman, and Mrs Angry has been informed that the same sources have suggested that a failure to censure such reported behaviour, or to distance the party from an individual alleged to have brought the party into disrepute, may well be in breach of the party's constitution or standing orders.

One must ask why the local Conservative Association has been completely silent on the subject of Brian Coleman's arrest, and his failure to make his apology to the victims of his abusive emails. What is the Chair of Chipping Barnet Conservative Association, and former councillor, Fiona Bulmer, doing about it? Is she interested in party discipline, or is that only used against courageous councillors who dare to abide by a moral code, rather than those who are found to breach the council's code of conduct in regard to members of the public, the tax payers who pay for our arrogant, offensive Tory councillors' allowances, and expenses, and indemnities?

Are the local Tories not going to take any position on either of these issues? Is the leader Cornelius really happy to be seen condoning a refusal to abide by the decision of a Standards committee and an appeal tribunal? Is he happy that his party is seen as the party which condones the sexist, ageist and offensive remarks made to residents in a council meeting? Clearly he is.

And we must all ask why, in the face of so much criticism of Coleman's behaviour, and his refusal to show any understanding of the duty of respect he owes to those he has the honour to represent, this fool is allowed to continue, unsanctioned, and without challenge by his Tory colleagues?

Partly it is because they secretly share some of his attitudes: and partly because they allow themselves to be bullied by his bluster and relentless self promotion. 

Ultimately it is because they do not realise that their failure to hold him to account is going to pull them further into the electoral abyss into which they are free falling, hurtling towards oblivion.

Mrs Angry is looking over the edge of the abyss, and rubbing her hands with glee.

 Update:

Oh look: Mrs Angry's attention has been drawn to a new blog post by our tedious Tory chum. No, she is not going to link to it, as really one must not encourage him. Find it yourself, if you must.

Councillor Coleman has given the world his views on the sudden departure of Chief Executive Nick Walkley. He says:

" ... the shock amongst Councillors at his sudden departure and for Haringey of all places is palpable ..."   

Oh really? 

"Having been appointed by an Administration lead by a radical and reforming Conservative Leader (Mike Freer) there is a theory that Mr Walkley was not as comfortable with a more traditional Conservative Leader determined not to throw out the baby with the bathwater who is more relaxed with Government at all levels doing less and achieving more ." 

Hmm. So that theory suggests that there is trouble in paradise, and Cornelius' funk over One Barnet may have acheived nothing practical in terms of a withdrawal - as yet - but the dithering may be causing some alarm and frustration amongst certain interested parties. Interesting.

And of course, according to Brian's forensic analysis of the reasons for Walkley's jumping overboard, Nick was tormented by mean words from certain quarters -  Mrs Angry's emphasis:

"However it was clear that despite his strength of character and the most disgraceful and personalised abuse by the sad , mad and the thoroughly nasty (and supposedly angry) , all was not well in the State of Denmark, (I am fond of my Shakespeare) ..." 

Do you know, citizens, I think he means me, which is rather amusing, after spending some time on Another Blog only the other day, defending Walkley over the Big Brother poster scandal, and God knows why, publishing the story absolving him of guilt over the Helen Michael SO15 fiasco. Of course what he really is talking about, as usual,  is Himself. 

Don't expect any sympathy on that count, you old fool.

Mrs Angry is fond of her Shakespeare too, Brian:

King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1:

Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides:

Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.

 

Cabinet questions: Mrs Angry v Brian Coleman - who won?

*Revised and updated Saturday:

Oh well, anyway, due to 'events, dear boy, events' Mrs Angry has only just got round to thinking about Part Two of the report from Wednesday's meetings: first, you may recall, we had the Cabinet meeting with the 76 questions from residents about the closure of Friern Barnet library (that went well, Robert Rams, didn't it?) and then, when we thought that the Tory Cabinet had delighted us quite enough for one evening, along came the second meeting, Cabinet Resources.

Another public question time, but this time only three questions, all from Mrs Angry, on the touchy subject of procurement and the never ending revelations of newly discovered non compliant contracts with hundreds of private companies providing services to Barnet Council.

A year after the MetPro audit report, in which the first indication was made of the full extent of non compliance, here we are, still stumbling over new examples of irregular arrangements where, in simple terms, your local authority throws money at the companies undertaking the provision of services with no proper tender process, no legal agreement, no terms of performance assessment, improperly scrutinised payment systems, and so on and so forth.

Does it matter?

Of course it does - the council constantly lectures us on the needs for budget restraint, cuts to service, making staff redundant, all for the cause of financial prudence, yet at the same time it has no idea how much money has been wasted in irregular commercial transactions with its own suppliers. The scale of incompetence by Barnet Council demonstrated by this endemic failure to regulate its own procurement systems is staggering: yet here they are now wanting to allow many of the companies it has been using in this way to continue their cosy arrangements, with our money being chucked at them, but no scrutiny of whether or not we are being ripped off, let alone acheiving value for money.

As mentioned in earlier blogs this week, Mrs Angry's original questions to the committee were censored without her permission, and despite requests for a copy of the rewritten questions, and for evidence for the constitutional powers that allowed officers to censor a question submitted to a committee for no reason other than political expediency, Mrs Angry received no copy, nor proper explanation.

She had not seen the questions in her name, nor the answers, therefore, before arriving at the meeting. This is traditionally done, of course, so as to wrongfoot members of the public who dare to submit questions to their elected representatives, and give them as little time as possible to prepare supplementary questions for the committee.

Question 1 had, in censored form, asked why no effective action had been taken, in such a long period, to identify and immediately address the issue of so many additional non compliant 'arrangements' with private companies.

The feeble response was:

Action is being taken inline with an action plan, the progress of which has been presented to the Audit Committee.

Question 2: Ha. Well, the amusing thing about the censorship of her questions was that although much of the 'sensitive' content had been removed, some naughty officer in Democratic Services had decided to allow the one question that Mrs Angry had been sure would be scratched out first of all: the helpful suggestion that Councillor Coleman, in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning and Regeneration might, in view of his failure to regularise the many non compliant contracts which come under his responsibilities, be moved to resign from his Cabinet post.

The written response was:

All services have been working with commercial assurance to implement the actions detailed in the action plan and in some cases waiver of contract rules has been deemed the most appropriate action as detailed in the respective reports.

And then, perhaps rather regretfully, Mrs Angry thought, reading between the lines ...

There is no reason for Councillor Coleman to resign.

I'll bet they had a bloody long look for one though, don't you, citizens?

Question 3: Will you admit that the level of incompetence in failing to identify such a massive number of non compliant contracts is scandalous enough in itself: but to fail to address the issues raised last year, within a reasonable time frame, is completely unacceptable and evidence of the most serious failure of responsibility by the senior management team and political leadership of the authority.

Response:

The Council outlined some time ago that not all of its contracts had complied with the contract procedure rules. The issues are being addressed and internal and external audit have sanctioned the action plan in place. Commercial assurance is working with the audit function to resolve outstanding issues.

Mmm. Mrs Angry chewed the end of her pen thoughtfully & scribbled some smart arse questions to put to the committee. There is never any point in asking a serious supplementary question on any important issue, of course: the Chair will always avoid giving any real answer, so the sport to be had depends entirely on how much the questioner can upset the members of the committee. Mrs Angry thought carefully, therefore, about how she might upset at least some members of the committee.

Time to sit at the table. And here you can see what happened next.

Be warned: there are some really awful sights - (Councillor Harper - just because someone gave you that jumper for Christmas, doesn't mean you have to wear it in public) and Mrs Angry, although in many ways better seen from the back than the front, has very messy hair, and looks as if she had just got out of bed. She had not.

Our Welsh blogging friend Cneifiwr has pointed that English council meetings appear to require an awful lot of nervous drinking of water. This is something not seen before, actually, and makes the Cabinet meeting look like a sort of University Challenge for the intellectually challenged Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, which of course it is.

You will observe that Brian Coleman behaves like a little shit, and is told off by Mrs Angry for being rude. Note that he dares not risk acknowledging her presence at the table for fear of her Medusa like powers, so refers to her in the third person, as if she was not really there.

You will note that the other Tory Cabinet councillors of Broken Barnet, notably Robert Rams, Andrew Harper, and even Richard Cornelius are - most unusually - unable to contain their mirth at this encounter, and even the normally ice cool Councillor John Thomas loses his composure. Mrs Angry very nearly lost her composure at the references to Brian Coleman's portfolio, but managed just about to behave herself.

Mrs Angry's supplementary question to Councillor Coleman, who has no reason to resign, is to wonder if he thinks that, as Cabinet member with so many non compliant contracts still in place, he has successfully demonstrated the corporate value which is the defining motto of One Barnet, 'a relentless drive for efficiency'. Coleman clearly has not read the questions, and is incapable of responding to the challenge of defending his record in office. And all that Chair John Thomas can do is stammer that he thinks Councillor Coleman has demonstrated 'a relentless drive for efficiency'. Mmm.

Sachin Rajput, furthest away, the world's most boring speaker, whose later speech at this meeting led Mr Mustard to leave the room in search of a length of rope, appears to have entered a catatonic trance, although even he was unable to restrain what looks like a small amount of amusement at one point, but may have been a malfunction in his digestive tract.

Public Question Time at Barnet Council's Cabinet Resources Committee 4 April 2012 from The Barnet Bugle Ltd on Vimeo.

The clip ends with leader Richard Cornelius telling Mrs Angry, more or less, that in his view the need for compliance with procurement regulations is a flipping nuisance and would stop the council from automatically using local firms, which would be dreadful. Councillor Coleman agrees. Because of course, when you think about it, if we had had such ridiculous restraints in place in the past, we would never have been able to employ a local company like MetPro.

Ah.

Think this is where it all started, Richard. Do try and keep up.

The rest of the meeting was pretty dull: luckily Mrs Angry was kept awake by the kindness of Mayor elect Brian Schama, who fed her with peppermints, openly admitting he was trying to bribe her to write nice things about him, which she would do anyway, because he is a nice man.

Also responsible for waking Mrs Angry up were a few interventions by Brian Coleman on the subject of erm, the long, long saga of the Dollis Valley Estate. He thought it needed 'rebranding', as it had such an awful reputation, and a Bad Odour. Mrs Angry thought that perhaps it might be called, well ... something like Coleman Valley Estate? That would teach them to aspire to get out pretty damn quick. Also, it occurred to her that Brian Coleman might benefit from rebranding, on the grounds of having a Bad Odour. What if he called himself , oh maybe ... Andrew Dismore? He might even get elected to the GLA.

On the subject of 'early intervention' measures by social care workers, Councillor Coleman had a view too. He declared that children required 'good male role models' (probably they look rather like Brian Coleman) and he wanted to stress that children in Barnet should be placed only with stable families, which in his opinion would consist of 'two parents and a father'. Interesting. Mrs Angry could think of a few examples in her family where this was, inadvertently, the case, but is Coleman, an openly gay man, suggesting that, for example, lesbian couples in Barnet should not be allowed to foster or adopt a child in need of a loving home?

Coleman also talked a load of rubbish, about rubbish, and waste disposal, and took the opportunity to insult the reporters on the local Times groups newspapers, one of whom, a young woman, was sitting in front of him. He described one issue, sneeringly, as something even a Times reporter might understand. She smiled to herself, but did not otherwise respond, and carried on with her notetaking.

Brian Schama was at the meeting to submit his Task and Finish report on procurement. When Mrs Angry asked him about this, he looked as if he might be about to cry, so she did not press the point. Throughout his presentation, Captain Cooper, head of commercial services, who had been giving Mrs Angry very bad looks throughout the evening, gripped his chin, and tried to pretend he was not Captain Cooper, or present in any visible form. It almost worked, but not quite.

Schama said that he wanted to introduce a new concept, that of a top down attitude to compliance, from the Chief Exective down. The Chief Executive, Nick Walkley looked even more like Dave from the Royle Family (sorry, but it's true, Mr Walkley) shifted uncomfortably in his seat, as if Barbara had asked him to put a brew on. Compliance, my arse, eh? Schama also introduced a new concept: that procurement officers might no longer be allowed to spend beyond a certain limit. Brilliant. This is groundbreaking stuff, in Broken Barnet.

In her last supplementary question, Mrs Angry had asked how, in view of the total inability of the council to get a grip on the existing procurement requirements, it could be trusted to take on the enormous challenge of the £1 billion One Barnet outsourcing programme. Naturally there was no real answer, because there is no satisfactory response that can be made.

Barnet is out of its depth, and floundering, and desperately clinging to the wreckage, while the corporate ship slowly sinks below the water. It was hubris, and the placing of profit before safety which sank the Titanic: the One Barnet ship is set on the same course, and the icebergs are looming on the horizon. (Yes, yes, alright, Councillor Cohen, and the wrong screws. The wrong loose screws ... Have you seen that scene in the Sunshine Boys, Walter Matthau and George Burns - 'Enter. And come in' ?)

Hey ho. A happy Easter, anyway, and Passover, to all readers.

*Update Saturday evening:

We need to return to the earlier part of the evening, question time for the Cabinet. You may recall a question from a Mr Paul Merchant, who 'fired' Robert Rams, Apprentice style, for his handling of the Friern Barnet library issue. If you look at the clip below, recorded and kindly supplied by the Barnet Bugle, you will note another example of incredible rudeness from Brian Coleman, from 58 seconds in. He not only interrupts and tells Mr Merchant to 'clear off', which is bad enough - take a look at what he says just before this. It looks as if he uses a word which rhymes with cat, hat, or splat and refers to an intimate part of a woman's body. Can any reader identify this word and explain to Mrs Angry, who was educated by nuns, you know, whether or not it is the sort of word which an elected member of the council should use in reference to a resident, in front of a public audience including several young children? And if anyone knows Mr Merchant, perhaps they might to ask him how he feels about being addressed in this way.

Local resident Paul Merchant asks if Cllr Robert Rams should be 'fired' just like in the Apprentice from The Barnet Bugle Ltd on Vimeo.