When the Press and Journal newspaper broke the story yesterday that Takki Sulaiman had been named as Aberdeen City Council’s preferred candidate for a newly created post as communications boss, there were a few raised eyebrows.
Councillors who had been on the appointments committee there claimed they’d been unaware he’d been a member of Haringey Council between 1998 and 2006. They’d been supplied a version of his CV but there was no mention of that illustrious period in his life. I understand he had notified the council at the “application stage”.
The omission has caused something of a row in Aberdeen.
The Press and Journal’s political editor Dave McKay reports today:
Aberdeen City Council’s chief executive has been asked to suspend the controversial appointment of a London-based PR chief amid a row over his background as a Labour politician.
Takki Sulaiman yesterday confirmed he had accepted an £80,000-a-year post to help fix the public image of the local authority, which has taken a battering in recent years.
As exclusively revealed by the Press and Journal, Mr Sulaiman was chosen as the preferred candidate to fill the position, which has been described as a “spin doctor” or “happiness tsar”.
Mr Sulaiman, who is leaving a head of communications post at crisis-hit Tower Hamlets Council in East London, is expected to begin his new role early next year.
However, opposition SNP group leader Callum McCaig has called for the process to be halted pending an inquiry.
He said Mr Sulaiman’s CV did not mention the fact that he was a Labour councillor for Haringey, and members of the appointments panel were not informed.
Four councillors who were on the nine-man panel said they were not aware of his political past either.
Last night, Labour finance convener Willie Young, who said on Monday that he “did not know” Mr Sulaiman had been a councillor, insisted the authority’s human resources team had in fact been told at the application stage.
Mr McCaig said: “Given that this is a politically restricted post, we need some clarification on this point.
“We need 100% assurances that this post holder’s loyalty is to the city of Aberdeen and not to the Labour party.”
Ross Thomson, a Conservative councillor who was also on the panel, said he was aware that Mr Sulaiman had worked as a fundraiser for Labour.
However, Mr Thomson added: “I did not know that he was a councillor, but I knew there was a connection with the party.
“Would I declare that? I would say yes, but I don’t think it should impact upon him getting the job or not.”
Labour group secretary Mr Young, who was also on the panel, accused the SNP group of “playing politics”.
He said: “Four out of the nine members of the appointments panel were SNP councillors, they had the majority on the committee.
“It is my information that (SNP councillor) David Cameron definitely knew. If they had any problem with this guy I am sure the four members would have flagged it up.”
So Takki’s job at Haringey is yet to be ratified is being challenged, but his departure from Tower Hamlets council was confirmed by head of paid service Stephen Halsey yesterday. (UPDATE: Takki has accepted his offer at Aberdeen so were that council to withdraw it he would have a legal claim against them.)
It may be that Takki had included his political career on a standard application form that headhunters or HR in Aberdeen then redrafted into a CV. I don’t know.
He refused to tell me when I asked him this afternoon. He told me it was “none of my business”.
For the record, here are two articles that reference his time as a councillor in Haringey during the Sharon Shoesmith/Victoria Climbie era: here and here.
Trial by Jeory 
I’m not going to make any comments about smallish rodents and ships that are finding it difficult to float. Oh, I just did, didn’t I?
This lot are an insult to rats, but the epitome of human vermin. Sooner or later Lutfur and co will get caught in their own filthy trap of deceit!
Their time will come, it always does in the end!
Fictitious wishful thinking. Some rogues escape. Consider Jimmy Saville for example.
Just patiently wait for Episode 1 : The Election Petition in January 2015.
I’m reasonably certain more exciting Episodes will follow.
Curious Cat.
Typo in fourth para from end. You say Haringey, but I think in context of that sentence you mean Aberdeen.
I am no defender of Sulaiman, but I have personal experience of head hunters who amend/filter candidate CVs, without the candidate being aware. That said, if I was on the selection panel, I’d have spent a half hour on google….
I think we should keep quite, let him go, and make sure he doesn’t get a payoff when he goes. Ships and rats comes into my mind.
Pay-off ? Of course. It is TH.
I wonder if he told Aberdeen his job down-south was going to be supervised by government inspectors ?
Curious Cat.
There are better reasons for not employing Takki than that he was a councillor in the distant past. Being a filthy Lutfur crony who pumps out pure propaganda for a renegade on the rates is one.
+1.
I’m sure the good Councillors of Aberdeen City Council would be very interested to hear about the PwC findings about expenditure on political communication funded by the Council Tax.
They can read about it on section 6 of the PwC Report (starts page 146)
see
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/best-value-inspection-of-london-borough-of-tower-hamlets
and
Click to access 140311_-_final_inspection_report.pdf
Although, of course, the excessive spending on East End Life was excluded from the Inspection East End Life has not been considered as part of the Inspection. As agreed with DCLG, this is due to the separate developing dialogue between DCLG and a number of local authorities (including LBTH) regarding local authority publications.
They will see from this that despite spending £100k on Takki’s post this is an authority which needed
* three special media advisers to coach the Mayor (total cost £313,500).
* special external advice prior to the Mayor appearing on a television programme (total cost £101,479 excluding VAT)
I wonder if Aberdeen’s Council budget is big enough for what seems like an awful lot of spending on publicity and communication in Tower Hamlets where the Service Head for Communications and Marketing is Takki Sulaiman.
I support the SNP stance that the appointment be suspended pending a proper investigation.
Wherever ones goes in Britain, Labour hanky-panky always pops-up. And it was Labour than created Rahman.
Curious Cat.
Created Rahman? – I think you should have paid attention in science lessons.
Please let’s keep quiet until Takki is someone else’s problem
I did. Science and Maths were my favourite subjects at school.
Once upon a time, there was Lutfur Rahman. Then by spontaneous combustion or by divine intervention Lutfur teamed-up with Labour.
Labour, the Party, showed Lutfur all the dodgy ways of doing things. They also showed him how to use sheer arrogance and how to indifferently ignore the public’s protests.
Lutfur thought this was really wonderful. He absorbed much more than the average Laborite. Eventually Lutfur decided he didn’t need his teacher any longer and, like a spoilt child who can’t get his own way, he branched off into Independence.
Labour failed to realise the full implication of the Son of Labour they had encouraged, nurtured and educated.
Possessing all the usual Labour methods, Lutfur proved himself an invulnerable ex-pupil. Weak Labour did not know what to do, so they did very little thinking wholesale surrender was the easiest option.
Can’t blame the Greens, Lib Dims, Tories or even UKIP for Lutfur’s ascendency. But one can, and should, blame Labour.
Curious Cat.
I would have thought that his involvement with ‘crisis hit’ Tower Hamelts would have been sufficient casuse for concern.
Actually, I will not name specific people, for obvious reasons, however the ‘local government’ and ‘registered social landlord’ circuit seems littered with people who fail in council/organisation x and drift [like convection currents] to council organisation y.
Very often they move out of London and, for example, their pay is ‘reduced’ from £100K to £80K, but they do pretty well out of serial mediocrity or, in some cases, incompetence. I’d guess they are re-employed by their mates who followed the same circuit?
If all else fails, there’s consultancy, too.
An accurate, truthful, realistic and factual summary of the sick British system where failing ‘public service’ staff are rewarded for their incompetence.
CC.
I’m more interested in which officer provided Takki Sulaiman with a reference and the legal implications for both LBTH and Aberdeen City Council.
There’s an interesting aspect to references for jobs and that is that the existing employer holds a legal “duty of care” to the prospective new employer. Thus
* an employer is under no obligation to provide a reference
* anything said in the reference has to be true and capable of validation.
* plus nothing of significance should be omitted.
see http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0930005.htm for more interesting legal points
So – three questions which interested Councillors can pursue:
1) Who exactly provided a reference for Takki?
2) Is that person aware of the duty of care aspects of providing an employment reference – and the legal liability of LBTH in this respect?
3) Did the person supplying the official LBTH reference exercise a proper Duty of Care to Aberdeen City Council with respect to all matters relating to the matters covered by the PwC report e.g.
* criticism of excessive spending on publicity by DCLG and
* political communication illegally funded by taxpayers?
A lot of employers will not supply a reference, only proof of employment.
For fear of being sued, if they supply a “Bad” one.
Supplying factually incorrect references can lead to legal action against the suppliers.
Takki also omits his previous role as a Labour Councillor from his profile on LinkedIn https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/takki-sulaiman/4/600/4bb
When people exclude on a selective basis, I always find myself wondering what else they have excluded.
This is how Takki sums himself up
“My entire working career has centred on enabling my employers and clients to communicate clearly and creatively. Since 2003 I have worked in the public and voluntary sectors specialising in complex and sometimes unpopular social issues. Such issues have included the numbers of children within the care system to running campaigns advising residents about the impact of welfare reform. As a Deputy Chief Officer in a high profile local authority I have sought to develop creative communications campaigns whilst adhering to the principles of transparency and good governance.”
That’s an interesting word “creatively”………
1. You can’t polish a turd! He’s done a pretty amazing job at LBTH, given what he’s had to work at. He’s worked under different leaders and different political groups. He’s clearly loyal to whomever is paying his wages.
2. Rats leaving sinking ships clearly springs to mind. There must now be very few second tier jobs at Mulberry Place that are filled on a permanent basis. This makes the commissioners’ job a lot easier!
3. And we’ve still got the results of the election court hearing to come – the early stages of which, as reported in The Telegraph – would seem to confirm some pretty significant issues.
Graham – any officer employed by the Council is employed by the Borough as a corporate body on behalf of the taxpayers it represents.
Officers are NOT employed by Mayors or Chief Officers!
The Borough as a legal body and the taxpayers pay their wages NOT the Councillors or the Managers!
Officers are therefore duty bound to be impartial and not take political sides. If they fail to do so they can be accurately characterised as “unprofessional”.
Any local government officer has to be equally capable of serving an outgoing administration as an incoming one – that’s why we have “politically restricted posts”!
All officers who behave in an impartial and professional manner have no problem in doing this – and having the complete confidence of politicians from all parties. In fact I’d go so far as to say that it’s an officer’s behaviour towards the opposition parties which ultimately determines any characterisation of that officer as professional or not.
In administrations where certain individuals have the mistaken belief that they are all-powerful, you also tend to get individual officers who are often characterised as “brown-nosing”. (There’s a lot of other words used to describe them too!) That’s not an attribute often associated with those who behave in a professional manner.
If all the descriptions of Takki’s behaviour on this blog are accurate it would be difficult to find a rationale for describing his conduct as completely professional – quite the reverse if anything.
Disagree slightly.
Employees are employed by the Head of Paid Service (normally known as the Chief Executive).
In reality jobs can be offered by Chief Officers or their staff and by the Mayor.
The is often a trading name, The entity is a (usually) principal authority. It is also a .
Officers, well all staff really, can be partial (and usually are, Labour are the worse) but some are banned by law from overt political actions.
mean not to engage in political favouritism or actions supporting political parties – in or out of work time – whilst holding their jobs (although some definitely do).
In English local government most staff are Labour supporters. Some are excellent, some are insipid and useless whilst others are crooks who always seem to get away with it.
English local government is generally a failure. Some senior staff are rewarded when their party is in government (medals and/or central government jobs with more salary).
The legislative theory is reasonable, but far from excellent. The practical reality is different and often disappointing.
English local government definitely requires a major overhaul with a lot of sacking of poor performers. It ought not to be a cushy refuge for dismal failures unable to get work in the private sector. The public deserve a lot better.
Curious Cat.
Take a look at any employment contract of any local government officer. The contract is always between the named individual and the local authority.
All that happens when a job is offered is another employee, acting as an agent of the corporate body, makes an offer of the job.
The contract is NOT with the Head of Paid Service. Nor very often is the Head of Paid Service mentioned in any letter offering a job. The letter usually comes from the Head of HR or the Head of Service for the Directorate in question.
What this means is that employment is not at the whim of the Head of Paid Service or the Head of Service – just as it’s not at the whim of the Mayor. If they change and move on, the employment contract does not terminate.
If for some reason something untoward happens during the course of the employment, employee would take the Council as a corporate body to an Employment Tribunal NOT the Head of Paid Service or the Head of Service.
It’s an important distinction and one that a number of “politicised” officers would do well to remember.
You really know very little about English local government if you think that the majority of employees are supporters of the Labour party!
I’ve worked for authorities of various political persuasions – Conservative, Labour and Liberal – and by and large I’d say the staff who often come from the local authority are representative of the population at large i.e. they have political allegiances which spread right across the board.
On the question of Politically Restricted Posts – in Tower Hamlets the conduct of an officer in LBTH is governed by Section 5.5 of the Authority’s Constitution. (Part 5 relates to Codes and Protocols).
This is the relevant section relating to Politically Restricted Posts. Note in particular the last sentence.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989
11.1 As a result of provisions introduced under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure the political impartiality of local government employees, some employees’ posts are subject to political restriction. This means that the postholders are prohibited from involvement in political activities as these could conflict with the responsibilities at work.
11.2 The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires that anyone who is employed by a local authority in a politically restricted or sensitive post is disqualified from being elected as a Member in another local authority or as a Member of Parliament or as a Member of the European Parliament. Employees holding politically restricted posts are also unable to undertake certain political activities within the following broad categories:-
* Writing or speaking publicly on politically controversial issues.
* Canvassing at any election on behalf of a political party or at elections
for MPs, MEPs, Mayor or Councillors.
* Holding office in any political party.
* Publicly declaring themselves a candidate for Mayor, Councillor, MP or
MEP .
11.3 The Act requires that employees holding the following posts should be politically restricted:
* Employees giving regular advice to Committees or Sub-Committees.
* Employees who regularly speak to journalists or broadcasters on
behalf of the Council.
11.4 A list of politically restricted posts is held by the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services). It contains the post designations and the section of the Act relating to their inclusion on the list
11.5 Under the Local Government (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990, the failure of a postholder holding a politically restricted post to comply with the restriction will result in disciplinary action being taken on the grounds of misconduct.
In other words breaches of the Employees Code of Conduct relating to political neutrality by those holding politically restricted posts is a Disciplinary Matter as set out in the terms and conditions of employment.
That’s why the Head of Communications is a politically restricted post and why it is extremely unusual (unprecedented?) that a post holder has previously been a Councillor with defined political allegiances.
It therefore follows that it is entirely unsurprising to find that Aberdeen City Council should be so very surprised to learn about Takki’s past political career – and maybe also unsurprising why Takki should go to such lengths to hide it.
This section of the Constitution relating to political neutrality applies to every single employee.
12. POLITICAL NEUTRALITY AND CONTACT WITH MEMBERS
12.1 Employees serve the Authority as a whole. It follows that they must serve all Members (the Mayor and all Councillors, not just those of the ruling political group) and must ensure that the individual rights of all Members are respected treating political groups and individual Members in a fair and even handed manner. Insofar as employees may be required to advise political groups, they must do so in ways that do not compromise their own political neutrality. This subject is covered in detail in the Member/Officer Protocol which governs relations between elected Members and Council officers.
12.2 It is important that Members enquiries should be dealt with efficiently and effectively within the established policy and procedures for the service area concerned. If employees consider that unreasonable Member pressure is being brought to bear with a particular issue outside of established procedures and policies, the relevant details must be referred to your chief officer. It is the Chief Executive’s responsibility to determine whether the incident concerned should be reported to the Group Secretaries.
12.3 Lines of communication between Members, employees and members of the public should accord with defined and established management practice, be readily identifiable and respected by all concerned.
12.4 Individual employees should not approach elected Members directly on employment matters.
12.5 Representations to Members should be made through chief officers or normal Trade Union/Member communication forums.
12.6 Employees must not disrupt official meetings of the Council or of its Cabinet, Committees, Sub-Committees, etc.
You’ll note that this section contains a number of obligations on the part of ALL employees and that this section also highlights ways in which ALL employees are protected from the pressures that badly behaved Councillors who breach their own Code of Conduct might bring to bear on employees
Curious Cat – Your ideas of how the vast majority of officers actually behave are really quite fanciful at times. You’ve either worked for a very odd authority and/or not worked for a local authority in many years or not worked in local government at all if you genuinely believe everything you say.
The reality is that LBTH is in now way representative of local authorities as a whole. That’s why the Commissioners are being brought in!
With respect your wishful thinking is far too optimistic.
Just because something is in the local authority’s rules (called The Constitution) it never ever means it will be obeyed – certainly not by those at the top.
11 years ago when I raised a Constitutional matter with the then S.151 officer, he was unaware of his particular Constitutional responsibilities relating to the issuing of (dubious) contracts. Later the same day he and the then Legal Director forged a document to retrospectively claim . I was told that by an office junior who used to leak information to me.
I have evidence the HOPS actually forged a document, personally, this year, to conceal the fact the document (employment terms and job description) never existed 2 to 3 years ago when the HOPS employed a insipid, crap, Yes-man. That I may, time permitting, put in the High Court with other matters.
Yes have ideals but don’t expect the local government riff-raff to obey them.
Why do you think I genuinely believe English local government needs an overdue clean-out and reorganisation ? Public services should serve the public, not the personal interests of financially bloated public parasites.
Curious Cat.
The contract is always between the named individual and the local authority.
Agreed. But the embodiment of the local authority for day to day purposes including discipline and firing and paying-off with large sums of the public’s money is (certainly in my sleazy Labour local authority) the Head of Paid Service.
Not one councillor is now involved in any employment matter or committee. Everything has been delegated to the HOPS.
What this means is that employment is not at the whim of the Head of Paid Service or the Head of Service
It certainly is in my sleazy local authority. And is an accurate description. The Head of Paid Service’s idea is to employ ‘Yes’ keen-to-please personal who are not too bright then get them to sign-off contentious matters they don’t understand. That way the HOPS doesn’t have their finger prints or signature on any relevant document. If something blows up the HOPS puts the blame on the next tier down, lets them resign with a indecent pay-off and a glowing, but untrue, reference. If it needs endorsing it is done in a cabinet Part 2 with councillors being told to vote for it and later telling me they didn’t understand what they were voting for.
Hence my comment about
There are, I believe, much better councils. There ought to be a law ensuring councils are run professionally for the benefit of the public, but there isn’t despite MPs knowing how crap some local authorities truly are.
If for some reason something untoward happens during the course of the employment, employee would take the Council as a corporate body to an Employment Tribunal NOT the Head of Paid Service or the Head of Service.
Just like Isabella did. What ever became of her two ? ET cases ? Is ding-dong Bell, whose husband John was on the infamous BMP membership list, still there in legal ?
It’s an important distinction and one that a number of “politicised” officers would do well to remember.
You are too optimistic.
Curious Cat.