Labour was left facing some awkward questions this week as Labour Councillors Judith Gardiner and Motin uz-Zaman vetoed the appointment of Aman Dalvi as the new Tower Hamlets Chief Executive.
Although Tower Hamlets has an Executive Mayor, who is in charge of most of the Council’s functions, the Councillors retain a few powers and responsibilities – including appointing the Chief Executive. The appointment would usually be handled by the Appointments Sub Committee, with its recommendation then being ratified by a vote at a meeting of the Council. When the vacancy for Chief Executive occurred, there was an immediate problem with this process. The Appointments Sub Committee would, like all Council Committees, be made up of Councillors from political parties in proportion to their relative representation on the Council. In other words, Labour and the Tories together would have a majority on the Appointments Sub Committee. Given that these two parties have waged a petty war of attrition against the Mayor, how could they appoint a Chief Executive whose main job would be to deliver the Mayor’s priorities?
This problem delayed progress on the appointment for some months, until a compromise was reached. It was agreed that the Sub Committee set up to make this appointment would have two Labour Councillors (Labour Leader Joshua Peck and his Deputy Motin Uz-Zaman), one Conservative (Gloria Thienel) and one Independent (Oliur Rahman) and that the Mayor would also be a member. They would employ a head-hunting agency to draw up a list of candidates for the Sub Committee to shortlist and interview. The breakthrough was that Labour recognised that the new Chief Executive would need to have the confidence of the Mayor as well as of the Council. As such, instead of making a recommendation by majority vote, each “side” – Councillors or the Mayor – could veto an appointment.
Although he was listed on the Council website as “expected” to attend the Appointments Sub Committee meeting on 23rd April, Cllr Joshua Peck appears to have withdrawn at the last minute. His place was taken by Cllr Judith Gardiner, who was not formally listed as his Deputy on the agenda. Cllr Peck had been present at the Appointments Sub-Committee on 28th March which had drawn up the shortlist. What happened to lead him to withdraw from making the final decision?
ELN understands that Aman Dalvi was the only candidate who attracted support at the meeting on 23rd April: but he was vetoed by the two Labour members present. Their reasons have not been made public. Labour now has some serious issues to confront.
•First, the failure to appoint an Asian candidate who appears, from the outside, to be qualified for the job will be taken as a slap in the face by large numbers of the communities of Asian origin in the Borough (and outside it). There is no suggestion that Mr Dalvi should have been appointed just because he is of Asian origin. The struggle for equality does not require that people of Asian origin be appointed in preference to better qualified people of other – say, white – ethnic background. However, the struggle for equality does require that once people of Asian origin reach a shortlist on merit, they are considered fairly. Labour will have to confirm that they had such serious reservations about Mr Dalvi’s ability to perform the job of Chief Executive that they could not recommend his appointment, despite the fact that Mr Dalvi’s appointment as Interim Chief Executive was approved by the full Council and that these reservations were not shared by the other two councillors and the Mayor who interviewed him.
•Second, Labour has stood a balanced ticket in the 2012 by-elections: a man of Bangladeshi origin in Spitalfields (two thirds of the population of Asian origin at the 2001 census) and a white man in Weavers (only 40% of the population of Asian origin, 2001 census). The Party will now have to find a way of reassuring the Bangladeshi population of Weavers that their councillors do judge people of Asian origin fairly and are prepared to appoint on merit.
•Third, Labour will have to convince the beleaguered voters of Tower Hamlets that their longstanding vendetta against the Mayor played no part in their Councillors’ decision. One expects some political combat from, say, the Tories, who have very different politics from the Mayor. But Labour making the Mayor the enemy at a time when the Tory Government is threatening the living standards of most of the Borough’s residents is widely seen as politicians playing petty politics with our lives. Cllrs Gardiner and Uz-Zaman will, no doubt, say that they made their decision on competence and not on party lines (and it would help if they did say this in public) – but they will have to deal with the public perception of their actions, in the context of Labour’s performance, as well.
The news comes in what would otherwise have been a good week for Mr Dalvi. He has been shortlisted for the Alan Cherry Award, presented in recognition of a significant contribution made to the quality of placemaking in the recipient’s community. As Mr Dalvi was nominated for the award on account of his work as a mere Corporate Director of Development and Renewal, he will have to comfort himself that even if he isn’t deemed good enough for Cllrs Gardiner and uz-Zaman, he is deemed by those who draw up the Award shortlist as performing on a par with the three officers of London-wide bodies on this year’s shortlist – and with the fact that his “services to housing” were good enough to win him an OBE back in 2000.