My last post about Murziline Parchment’s failed application to become Tower Hamlets chief executive has caused a bit of a fuss at the town hall, I’m told.
What Murziline herself thinks, I don’t know.
Prior to publication, I wrote to her to say I intended to publish details of her application. I invited her to discuss them with me but she simply passed on my email to the press office, which, surprisingly, made no attempt to talk about the story or find out what details I had. Instead, communications head Takki Sulaiman emailed me to say employment details were “private and confidential” so there would be no comment.
This “private and confidential” line is interesting. The council owes a duty of confidentiality to Ms Parchment and it has now ordered an investigation into how her details were leaked to me. Apparently, only a handful of senior officers and five councillors had access to the application, but I’m also told there had recently been a clear-out of some files during an office move, when someone else might have spotted the report lying around.
I’d been told that the council was trying to fine a way of “getting me” but for nine days after I published the documents, no one from town hall made any contact. But then, last Friday, the council’s legal department sent me an email.
The department, which is headed by the fine Isabella Freeman, usually marks all correspondence (and even responses to members’ enquiries) as “private and confidential”. But the letter to me contains so such marking and as such I’m going to publish it.
Frankly, the letter a bit weak. It accuses me of “poor journalistic standards” and of breaching the Editor’s Code of Conduct, citing paragraph 3.1 which states “everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications”.
It also cites item 10, which states that “the press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by…the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or digitally-held private information without consent”.
On item 10, I didn’t seek anything. As I said in the original post, the documents were posted to me and they arrived as a complete surprise.
I then removed all Ms Parchment’s personal contact details from the report and published only professional matters. Remember, she was handed her current (powerful) role as head of the mayor’s office without any formal and usual recruitment process. Remember, too, that her work now forms part of a fraud investigation examining the invoices she signed off for Gulam Robbani.
As chief executive of Tower Hamlets, she would have been “head of paid service” and been responsible for signing off far more invoices. Perhaps the interview assessors in 2009 did us a good public service. I wonder what they would have written had she been before them for her current role, one which is new and evolving under her own direction.
The council makes three further points in its letter to me. It says that my publication of the headhunters’ report “may cause distress to Ms Parchment”. Note: “may”, not “has”. Again, Ms Parchment has made no attempt to contact me.
The council says the publication “may also affect the confidence of individuals who might apply for roles in the council”. If that’s the case, the council needs to demonstrate it can keep confidential information confidential. That means strengthening its processes, I suspect. I’m glad to have been of service.
And finally, the council “requires” I remove the documents because I do not own the “intellectual property rights in the report”. It says those rights remain with the council and the headhunters, Green Park.
In that paragraph, the council reveals its desperation. However, it’s an interesting argument and for that reason, I’d like to open it up for wider discussion before making a final decision.
Here’s the council’s legal letter.
Trial by Jeory 
Ah Ted,
I see you’re back to scanning things in your usual way – JPEGs rather than individual PDFs for each page that are watermarked ‘terryscanner’
Oh, i wouldn’t read too much into ‘terryscanner’! Not the Terry you’re thinking of.
Of course it wouldn’t be the Terry you think I’m thinking of. Last I looked he wasn’t on the Appts Sub-Committee circa 09…
But why the PDFs for the first (and apparently last) time in your life?
I used PDF last time because when I tried previewing the documents in JPEG, the text wasn’t too clear. I’d scanned the document using a colleague’s scanner and spent an hour or so on the day I published the article trying to work out how to get WordPress to present it in a user-friendly format.
I didn’t really like just having a link to the PDF, which is why I’ll always use JPEG where possible. Capice?
Are the Express Group happy for you to use their resources to publish information which could only have been illegally obtained?
Sigh.
You mean like the MPs’ expenses scandal?
Really, Tom, your observations are normally far better. Stick to the point.
So basically your argument is that publication was in the public interest specifically within the context of:
* the nature of Ms Parchment’s appointment to her current post (i.e. failure to follow all relevant and proper processes)
* related and alleged fraudulent practices within the Council which are very much in the public interest (i.e. failure to follow all relevant and proper processes)
* the continuing vacancy in terms of a CEO – and what that represents in terms of Parchment’s current and potential future sphere of influence
The argument proposed by the Council’s Lawyers is that such information is normally confidential and it’s not in the public interest to publish it – but they totally ignore:
* any and all matters relating to Ms Parchment which are currently under investigation,
* all matters relating to the Council’s failure to follow due process and
* the current context of a failure to appoint a CEO.
I’d call that a stand-off. Where next I wonder?
From the perspective of the electorate, there’s one option which should be considered by all those Councillors who want to promote the Council as a place with integrity which does the right thing. Now is the right time for Councillors to call for ALL relevant assessment reports of any future CEO to be made public immediately following appointment. That should make it plain to all interested parties that ANY appointment processes for ALL key top jobs will be totally transparent and open to scrutiny.
After all, it’s very much in the public interest for the electorate of Tower Hamlets to know that the CEO job is in a safe pair of hands and that an appointment has been made on the basis of competence to do the job and not the political whim of a Mayor who appears to be content for his office to ignore proper process.
PS I wonder what the lawyers been doing to address all the other matters highlighted on this blog which have been bringing the Council’s reputation into disrepute. Is there any feedback on that?
Well done. From the former CEO of the Community Organisations Forum.
Whoever sent the report to you has surely breached the Data Protection Act by not keeping data on an identifiable individual secure.
Sadly, because you say you have no idea where it came from, it’s impossible to lay this at the Council’s door.
Fortunately this Act would also prevent publication of assessments of other CEO candidates in the future which is unnecessary and a gross breach of privacy.
I really don’t like publication of this document. It is personal. And who’s to say she hadn’t just had an ‘off day’ at that interview and hadn’t prepared sufficiently? I know I’ve had one or two interviews for jobs that, on paper, I could do in my sleep (and the employers must have recognised that to give me an interview in the current market). But on the day I was poorly prepared for the actual questions and did badly. I could feel it slipping away and I would hate anyone to publish the assessment if I were to get a different job with the same employer.
What do you think about her being handed a separate politically related job without any formal application or interview/assessment process? It seems that Lutfur would have been one of the five councillors in possession of the leaked document in 2009, ie he was fully aware of its contents when he made her head of his office.
I tend to think that when it comes to such senior public sector and politically influential appointments that transparency and full disclosure is no bad thing. Remember, the report is heavily critical of her lack of understanding of Tower Hamlets: isn’t that worrying given that she is driving force behind Lutfur and his quasi-Livingstonian agenda? The judgement being shown over Old Flo and the row that will soon come over the mainstream grants allocation are just two examples.
(Incidentally, I also think Parchment–and the press office–were pretty inept in failing to seek what information I had. That was also a lack of judgement. I’m not convinced at all that she simply had an off day.)
I am torn.
On one hand there is some temptation to celebrate another excellent exposure of incompetence and amateurism in Mayor Rahman’s administration but on the other hand this just makes him and his people more confident they are untouchable both politically and legally.
It seems to me that this legal letter is a bit of going through the motions and they do not actually contemplate taking any serious legal action. There might be a little scapegoating exercise behind the closed doors to find out who had leaked the paperwork but in long term the whole thing just makes the Mayor and his people more confident. We waste money – nothing happens. We sign doggy invoices – no problem at all. Our policies are driven by an incompetent person – so what ?
This woman did Isabella’s job for the Greater London Authority? That makes her pretty hot stuff. Any council would be over the moon to get their hands on her.
The comment above is from someone who is clearly not a dyed-in-the-wool Lutfurite (as you might accuse me of being) and I agree with them: this is unethical. And I think you should take it seriously.
As regards the allegation you repeat ad nauseum that Parchment did not go through interview process…do you have any evidence for that? Because if I’m not mistaken that would be illegal and either you should report it and hand over your evidence or cease to repeat it – an unfounded accusation of illegality is potentially actionable.
On a light note, delighted to see we’ve moved from observing a quasi-fundamentalist to a quasi-Livingstonian agenda…you must be going soft, Ted
“did Isabella’s job for the GLA”…am not sure you understand Isabella’s role at LBTH.
And LBTH weren’t exactly over the moon to get her were they? They rejected her when they had the chance.
She may well have been interviewed for her current role, but not in the same way as she was for the CEO role. (And by the way, the allegation was first made on Andrew Gilligan’s blog last year–and to my knowledge, there has not been any complaint or request for a correction.)
I’m struggling to see the “unethical” aspect, Tom. In your previous comments, you seem to want to have information suppressed and for journalists who dare to enlighten taxpayers targeted. Quasi-Livingstonian that. You’ll be comparing me to a concentration camp guard next. (On a lighter note, of course.)
Not at all, Ted. I’ve a lot of respect for good, active and constructive local journalism which has been been responsible for many good things in local politics across the country.
But I can see I’m not alone here in not having much respect for publishing a personal, confidential report about someone.
I don’t have much respect for Dirty Desmond’s group which is alone among major proprietors in not even signing up to the Editors’ Code that Galpin quoted at you.
Nor do I have much respect for Archant whose replacement of subs with ‘hubs’ probably accounts for the liberal usage of bad English and spelling mistakes that litters Mike Brooke’s journalism.
Work for some decent outfits!
You’re misinformed, Tom. And probably a little prejudiced.
The Express is signed up to the Editors’ Code. We’re very frequently reminded that we are bound by it. We print our obligations to it on p2 every day.
And how lovely of you to sneer at a journalist of 40 years’ experience who was not only born and brought up in the East End but still, despite everything, cares passionately about it and journalism.
Archant and other newspaper groups rely on journalists caring about their work. They don’t need sneering little comments.
By the way, I’m intrigued: you never responded to my comment about the MPs’ expenses scandal.
Ted: straw man there. If you read what I wrote, I was not sneering at Brooke at all. I notice that the relevant line of my own comment there could be considered bad English – ‘litters’ rather ‘litter’. It’s something we’re all guilty of. The criticism I made was of the managers who make sub-editors, whose job it is to make the material good enough for us to read, redundant. Surely that’s not something you support?
And am I incorrect in thinking that the Express quit the PCC last year? If not, ‘bound’ in what sense? Who holds you to account?
Then why single out Mike Brooke? Very poor form, Tom.
I don’t support anything that decreases the quality of journalism.
The Express quit the PCC because managers felt it was a toothless watchdog, an accusation that Tom Watson and others have since made.
Who holds me to account? My bosses. The Editors’ Code of Practice is an integral part of my employment contract.
As a matter of interest, Tom, it might be worth examining how many hacking allegations have been made against the Express.
I hate it when companies/orgs give people or ‘their favourites’ a promotion or job without following due process. What’s even worse is when companies go through the whole charade of advertising and interviewing for a post for which they already know who they will give it to, so from that point I agree with the sentiment of this piece….. BUT this post and previous Ted stated more than once with some ‘God-like’ knowledge that this woman did not have any sort of interview/application formal or not, but I just read a response to Tom’s comment from Ted when pressed and the tone was of “I’m not really sure if she did follow any interview process…. can’t have been formal”…. and lastly says that the reason for his God-like knowledge on this specific bit of info was because another nutter, by the name of Gilligan first stated it.
That sort of back-tracking no matter how minuscule to the main content of the story does not fill me with confidence in the reasons for posting all that info.
No back-tracking.
Here’s what I wrote in the original post:
Like I say, it’s not been denied and there has been ample opportunity, including in that legal letter.
“What do you think about her being handed a separate politically related job without any formal application or interview/assessment process?”
Then later…
“She may well have been interviewed for her current role, but not in the same way as she was for the CEO role. (And by the way, the allegation was first made on Andrew Gilligan’s blog last year”
This may seem small and padantic but I’m just reading what your responses are and both are different.
I know you have asked and you had no response, but you might want to investigate further into ‘those allegations’ made by Gilligan, confirm what you have initially claimed on the back of his usual tripe and then peruse this as a breach of some sort of regulation.
Fair point.
But like I say, she and the council’s press office have had 20 months to correct any inaccuracy.
That they haven’t suggests there is no inaccuracy or they are incompetent, either of which kind of proves the point.
I think the best way of looking at this is to consider what value is added by revealing this document. As I see it, there isn’t much – particularly when set against the potential damage, both professionally and personally, it could do to the individual.
I know that I wouldn’t want a record of my previous interviews published, and I doubt many others would either. The argument here is that the individual holds a position of local power. Yet still, I don’t think that provides a strong case for revealing notes of an interview from three years ago.
It smacks of a personal agenda against either Ms Parchment or her employer, who in this instance seems to be the mayor. It certainly doesn’t seem to be something that benefits residents in any way whatsoever.
Is it a good scoop? Probably, yes. Is it in the public’s interest? I’d say that’s questionable at best. Is it bad taste? I’m afraid the answer is yes, certainly.
Ted, you’ve said in the title of this piece that you’d like to discuss this issue. I hope this includes considering the responses carefully, and the possibility of accepting that the posting of the document might have been a step too far.
I assure you, all responses are being considered and I genuinely meant the request to discuss.
Now consider this latest advert in East End Life. It’s another addition to the Mayor’s office, ie the little empire developing under Ms Parchment and Mayor Lutfur. They’re advertising for a new “equalities adviser”.
On a salary of £40,000.
In a council which has an entire department called One Tower Hamlets devoted to such work.
This post will come under Ms Parchment’s budget area, along with all the others, including the media adviser role currently bagged by a jobbing reporter for Channel S television.
The “head of the mayor’s office” is quietly developing into a shadow chief executive’s operation in terms of influence.
Hence the scrutiny, and the questions.
Here’s the advert:
I have to agree – but say she was hired ahead of Kevan Collins for that post of CEO and then you posted those comments, that would have been worthy of posting and personally, I would have applauded you because I myself have been ‘rolled over’ once for a job by a person who was so incompetent.
But as you are using the interview comments of a job which is physically unrelated to her current post and gaining views from that, this is where the issue lies.
But look – the mayors office is all about sorting out mates with jobs and unfortunately, able people are being over looked, I have heard it time and time again from Mulberry Place, but this has been going on during the era pre-Lutfur and there was no one ‘digging’ back then.
Tower Hamlets council is one council that should be forced ‘I know it would cost’ to use independent recruitment companies like the group who interviewed for the CEO post, for all jobs there because I can tell you that even the recruiting of the Mayors Young Apprentice programme has ‘some’ trainees who were and will be given fast tracked recruitment onto the programme!!!
On another note mentioning Channel S – I have heard the currently closed Sutton Street parking enforcement depot is stealthily being given/favoured to Channel S to take over!!!
I’m sure nepotism is endemic but it relies on whistleblowers and leakers to help expose that.
I tend to Lord Northcliffe’s axiom that news is something that someone somewhere wants suppressed.
The “head of the mayor’s office role” is new and murky; how that office is developing is worrying. And I’ve heard that from several councillors, not all of them totally unsympathetic to the mayor. I think it’s right that we in LBTH know who is running it.
At the very least, it should have been disclosed at the time of her appointment that Ms Parchment had applied to be CEO.
As for using recruitment consultants, I sympathise with the underlying thought but you would be throwing good money away if used at every level.
With all due respect, your appeal for your readership’s view on whether this confidential document should remain on your website seems pretty disingenuous.
The clear prevailing view is that you should not (be it poor taste, or not in the public interest, or whatever) and you can see that most of the people replying to you (myself excepted) are usually very supportive of the content of your blog.
But instead of gauging opinion as you suggested you were doing, you simply rebut every criticism with the same old arguments. What’s wrong with JimmyTH or Eastenders… thinking you shouldn’t keep the document up? You asked them, and they’ve told you. Wasn’t that what you wanted? Why do you need to try to persuade them that you’re in fact right?
It’s called debate, Tom. You’re betraying your quasi-Livingstonian tendencies again.
I’m v much taking things on board. (Not everyone who makes comments does so by publishing them on this blog btw.)
Hey ‘Tom’, I notice that your comments are coming from a Selwyn College, Cambridge, IP address/’watermark’.
Funny that. Axel Landin, who works part-time in Ms Parchment’s office, is currently the vice-president of the post-graduate Middle Common Room at that college.
(See here)
Quite a coincidence! Do you know him?
Hmm… a bit cheap Ted.
Most people on here use pseudonyms. Maybe people prefer them because TH politics can tend towards the vitriolic. You know who most of them are. I had no illusions about that – forget the IP address, my email address is a big clue. I don’t have a problem with you knowing who I am.
But I don’t see why you would reveal it like that. I’ve only ever seen you do that before in the case of sockpuppets. I always use the same alias and I NEVER get involved when I myself am the subject of discussion/criticism (a la BOSH).
In half of my comments, I actually say things like ‘I’m no impartial bystander but’ etc.
Unless you’re planning to reveal the identities of everyone commenting here that uses pseudonyms, it seems pretty unfair.
Wrong.
I had no idea who you were. Your email address does not contain your real name. If it had done, I would not have looked into the IP address issue.
The fact is you made no declaration about your interest in this matter yet seemed to comment from afar. That’s a form of sockpuppetry in my view.
Where someone has declared who they are to me, I will protect their identities, of course. You didn’t yet you’ve had the opportunities on several occasions.
And when you tried to stir the pot with my employers, I took a rather dim view of who this ‘Tom’ was.
Feel free to pick another pseudonym, Tom, but I suggest you declare it to me in private if you don’t want me to go digging on who it is.
And now, after a little more digging, I see that the Selwyn College IP address is also used by another regular commenter on this blog called ‘Steve O’Driscoll’. Like you, he’s also been keen to issue threats of libel in his comments.
A much clearer example of sockpuppetry, no…?
Not at all, Ted….I’ve consistently used the same pseudonym for more than a year.
If you didn’t like what I said about the Daily Express, sorry. But you could simply have not allowed the comment rather than descending into a fit of pure spite and evident glee.
And in that sense none of your commenters declare their interests. ‘Concerned’ for example I know to be a particular councillor in the opposition, and you may well know who it is too. Maybe the fact that they’re an opposition councillor is why they’d make critical comments of the administration….but that’s never been an issue before
I’ve no idea who ‘Concerned’ is. If you want to suggest who it is to me, then I can check it out.
It’s not what you said about the Express. You’re completely free to criticise any paper. We’re big enough to accept that. But in raising the question of whether my employers would be happy me using a work scanner, you went a bit further: you were trying to throw my employment into doubt.
And you did so under the cover of a pseudonym that had not been declared to me. I think that was a bit cowardly to be honest and I hope you learn from it. (I seem to remember someone doing something similar to you in Private Eye and you weren’t happy about that–and as I told you, I sympathised with your view. So it was hypocritical of you, no?)
I’d stop digging on this if I were you. You’ve been caught out.
And just so we’re clear, ‘Steve O’Driscoll’ last made a comment in May. He was making regular comments before that, as was ‘Tom’. From the same Selwyn College IP address. In similar language.
I’m not digging Ted, as I said I’d assumed you were fully aware who I was.
Really?
Don’t you think I’d have raised questions about ‘Tom’ making comments about Murziline Parchment if I knew that was you?
And what made you think I knew who ‘Steve O’Driscoll’ was?
As a mere observer of TH’s affairs, who lives in neighbouring Waltham Forest, I’m amazed by some of the comments that have been made in this thread.
Of course it is in the public interest that local government procedures are fully exposed to the widest possible gaze. And why on earth should we – who pay for it all – not know what headhunters think of a candidate for a senior public sector position? Its called transparency and accountability.
Because the candidate themselves doesn’t get to know what headhunters think of them. The contents of the reports that headhunters produce are known to the headhunters and the employers. The candidates don’t get to see what is written about them.
Nobody is perfect. There is never going to be somebody who meets all the criteria 100% as the employers want.
It is to be expected that anybody who patently fails to meet the required needs won’t be shortlisted for further stages of the recruitment process. Others will have the opportunity at interview to address any concerns that the employers will have about gaps or weaknesses in experience.
Publishing the headhunters report is useless and harmful because
(a) the reports are not made available to the candidates so why should they be made available to the public?
(b) the candidates will have no idea of what the headhunters will have written about them and have no opportunity to correct the published information.
(c) the public is not (and should not be) privy to the further interview stages where the assessment in basic headhunters report is rigorously tested. Therefore the public cannot make any informed judgement on the candidate selection because the information is out of context
(d) it is not the job or the right of public to appoint candidates to a post on a council. Just as it is not for me to appoint the chief executive of RBS/NatWest just because I happen to have an account there. (Even with mutuals such as Nationwide the membership does not have the right to see all the CVs/headhunter reports for the Chief Exec, Finance Officer etc.)
Job appointments, particularly to senior positions in private or public sector, are not the bl**dy X-Factor.
It seems to me that the only purpose of Tom’s comments is to create a distraction when anybody raises issues about the nature of Ms Parchment’s employment – and how that came about.
Let’s not forget that unless the job she now holds was advertised for all to see and the opportunity given for any current officer of the Council – or any other candidate to apply – that the Council has breached the law relating to Equal Opportunities.
What was that function she needed assistance with?
What was her alleged area of expertise on her CV?
I disagree, eastendersscriptwriterscouldn’tmakeitup.
What the public has a right to expect is that procedures are rigorously followed, and that the best candidates are appointed, in line with the seven principles of public life.
Personally, I’m not in favour of councils employing headhunters, but I accept that usually they do so to introduce an extra layer of quality control, and if that is the case, it is perfectly reasonable for the public to know of what then transpires. Most people are quite capable of understanding that headhunters are mere mortals like the rest of us, and their utterances are no more necessarily to be taken at face value than those of councillors.
Nor does your comparison with RBS/Nat West work. If I am a shareholder in these banks I will want to be absolutely sure that the appointment process for senior positions yields absolutely the best candidates. No doubt the old boys club will try to deter me, but it can be argued that it is precisely the veil of secrecy that has so often been drawn over such appointments in recent years that has been one of the causes of our current corporate woes, and of course that is why the old boys clubs are increasingly being seen as anachronisms.
I think that your claim that appointments to senior positions are ‘not bl**dy X-factor’ is rather revealing. Is it that you think the public is too thick to understand what goes on in local government?
Finally, you suggest that if headhunters’ advice slips out, the poor little lambs seeking senior jobs will be upset at being judged and without recourse to reply. Tough. As I’m sure you know, for the vast majority of people seeking jobs, that’s par for the course. Why should those going after senior positions be any different? At least the latter can console themselves that they are competing for an opportunity to earn at least three or four times the median wage.
All in all, you make it sound as if the traditional way of making appointments to senior positions in local government has been a great success. The recent history of the Olympic boroughs, and the antics in City Hall, hardly bear you out.
Ted, just been looking at the FOI requests on the LBTH website. This Axel Landin who is making a presence on this blog, and continues to betray the Labour Movement , coming from outside Tower Hamlets with his high minded views without having to live under the community division created by Rahman and his pumping of tax payers’ money into his own vanity projects and the projects of his friends and supporters. Is it the case that Axel is no longer a “consultant” (what a joke) to the mayor and now works in the communications department (an even bigger joke), seconded to the mayor’s office? If this is the case, is this a permanent post? Was it advertised and all equal opportunities procedures followed? Or just Rahman avoiding them embarrassing invoices and giving his boy a proper job.
[…] place you will read about the often crazy world of Tower Hamlets politics. On the comments page to a recent post, the blog’s author, journalist Ted Jeory, suggests one of the comment posters called Tom is […]
Isabella Freeman and Axel Landin are both Quislings, happy to cosy up to Islamofascism for a quick buck. In the case of Landin, a naive twenty-something in a politicised Spad sort of role it’s almost forgiveable (though most decent people would still like to resolve his problems with lampposts and piano wire).
In the case of Freeman she is a Legal Officer who makes up the law out of her own head, shills for the administration even though she’s meant to be an unbiased legal officer. It would be a saving grace if she at least was ashamed of herself but I think she had the shame gene systematically removed from her system by the Boys from Brazil.
She has already had her arse handed to her on a plate when she tried to take a Standards complaint against a councillor to a legal tribunal – they declined even to hear the complaint from her – she is now wasting more taxpayers’ money appealing to the High Court, who no doubt will decline to hear from her presently. The thousands of LBTH money she has wasted pursuing a personal vendetta against councillors who oppose her will no doubt come out presently.
In short, Ted, please ignore the ravings of the deranged Freeman. She has no weight in law and likes to try and bully anyone she can by abusing her authority as a Legal Officer.