We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Mustafa Khan please sign in and let everyone know.

Ruth Bagley disciplinary and employment legal costs

We're waiting for Mustafa Khan to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Slough Borough Council,

Please kindly reveal the full details of all external lawyers that provided legal advice, or advice of a legal nature, to the Council, its staff and officials including its then interim Monitoring Officer, about the Ruth Bagley disciplinary process and the subsequent settlement of the disciplinary process (also known as the pay-off or compromise settlement).

(3) Which persons actually received that advice ?

(4) What were the comprehensive costs, including VAT, paid by the Council to each of the lawyers at (2) above ?

(5) Whom specifically from the Local Government Association, or its associate or subsidiary companies or organisations or related entities, provided any support or any assistance or any advice or any form of help to the Council on the negotiations between Ruth Bagley and the Council relating to the termination of Ruth Bagley's employment with the Council ?

(6) Please itemise all the costs paid by Council in (5) above.

(7) Which Local Government Association, or related organisation, staff, officers, consultants, advisors etc. provided advice, guidance and/or help to the Labour Group meeting, before the December 2016 meeting of the full council, about the Ruth Bagley settlement ?

(8) What was the comprehensive costs, including VAT, paid by the Council for (7) above ?

(9) Why was the disciplinary process into Ruth Bagley's conduct stopped and who authorised that stoppage ?

(10) Please supply a copy of the executive decision to prematurely terminate the Ruth Bagley disciplinary process.

Yours faithfully

Mustafa Khan

FOI, Slough Borough Council

Thank you for your email.

 

Providing excellent customer services is one of the council’s key
priorities.

 

Your enquiry will now be forwarded to the relevant department to answer.

 

We will reply fully to all written enquiries within 10 working days
although we aim to reply to emails sooner than this.

 

If your enquiry is a Freedom of Information request, the council may take
up to 20 working days to respond.

 

 

If you do not receive a satisfactory response by this time you can contact
our complaints department. More details here:

[1]http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...

 

http://www.slough.gov.uk/business/regene...

'Disclaimer: You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by
this Organisation are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in
this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential
and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee).  The views expressed
may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.  If
you are not the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution,
other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you received this message in error please return it to the originator
and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it. All messages sent by
this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus
products.  This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted.  
Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the
detection and eradication of viruses.'

References

Visible links
1. http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...
http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/complai...

_FreedomOfInformation, Slough Borough Council

This is to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request which is receiving attention

show quoted sections

Parkin Roger, Slough Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Khan

 

Please find attached response to your FOI request.

 

 

Roger Parkin  

Interim Chief Executive

 

Slough Borough Council
Tel 01753 875207

 

www.slough.gov.uk
Please don't print this email unless you really need to - think of the
environment.

 

 

http://www.slough.gov.uk/business/regene...

'Disclaimer: You should be aware that all e-mails received and sent by
this Organisation are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
therefore may be disclosed to a third party. (The information contained in
this message or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential
and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee).  The views expressed
may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.  If
you are not the addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution,
other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
If you received this message in error please return it to the originator
and confirm that you have deleted all copies of it. All messages sent by
this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest antivirus
products.  This does not guarantee a virus has not been transmitted.  
Please therefore ensure that you take your own precautions for the
detection and eradication of viruses.'

Slough Witch left an annotation ()

That is interesting.

Another individual made a similar request, but apparently didn't ask nicely enough for Mr Parkin. So he refused to answer.

Now Mr Khan has made a broadly similar request, but in a perfectly polite and reasonable way that could not offend even Mr Parkin's delicate sensibilities. And his sensibilities are indeed delicate. For an individual who aspires to the most senior position in the unitary authority, he has a particularly thin skin. He will certainly have to grow a thicker one if he is to survive the rough and tumble of such a lofty designation.

This time Mr Parkin is offended, not by the manner of Mr Khan's inquiry, but by his belief that Mr Khan might be in some way connected with the original requester. He does not know for sure, but suspicion is apparently enough.

Except it is not. Mr Khan is perfectly entitled to expect the authority to meet its obligation to respond, no matter with whom he is or is not associated.

The answers to some of Mr Khan's questions are detailed in the authorities 'Employee Code of Conduct' which the authority could have disclosed with little inconvenience to themselves.

Perhaps I am being unreasonably cynical, but could it be that Mr Parkin is abusing his position to unlawfully prevent disclosures that could expose his own wrongdoings and breaches of the code of conduct? That is in itself grounds for dismissal under the authorities disciplinary policy.

Janik2 left an annotation ()

I, Paul Janik, hereby affirm I have no knowledge of the person known on this web site as Mustafa Khan and have never ever been in contact of any description with that person or that person's representatives.

I can confirm I have spoken to the council's external auditor naming certain senior council staff and discussing the 3 anonymous corruption complaints in my possession. Naturally I have shared the complaints to ensure resilient safeguarding of material evidence.

Lets Clean-up Slough Council.

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Mustafa Khan please sign in and let everyone know.