CROYDON IN CRISIS: The notorious £437,000 payment made to former council chief exec was agreed at an ‘unlawful’ meeting and should never have been paid. EXCLUSIVE by STEVEN DOWNES
Hush fund: Tony Newman should have had ‘absolutely no role’ in arranging the settlement for Negrini
The near-half-a-million pounds paid to Jo Negrini in August 2020 to speed her exit from Croydon Council and ensure her silence was arranged because of a “breakdown in trust” in the chief executive’s working relationship with Tony Newman, the then leader of the council.
That’s according to an official council response to its external auditors, which also states that the decision to make the payment was taken at an unlawful meeting, with incomplete or inadequate advice provided by council officials to the councillors on the committee. Further, the response says that Newman should never have been allowed to chair the meeting, and that the £437,973 handed to “Negreedy” should never have been paid.
It has taken council officials almost 12 months to draft the formal response, which has been published on the council’s website before going before next week’s full council meeting for approval.
The Negreedy “golden handshake” was pushed through at a meeting of the council’s appointments committee held on August 27, 2020, just a few weeks before the auditors, Grant Thornton, issued their first Report in the Public Interest on the chaotic mismanagement of the local authority and predicting its financial crash. Newman resigned as council leader just before that RIPI was published and he resigned as a councillor early in 2021. He has been suspended from the Labour Party for almost two years.
The matter of the £437,973 pay-off to Negrini was questioned by a Croydon resident, who raised it with the auditors, who in turn put to the council whether such a payment represented “best value” for Council Tax-payers.
No expense spared: Jo ‘Negreedy’ Negrini was given a massive pay-off after her working relationship with the council leader broke down
It has taken the brains trust at the council to finally draw the conclusion that, well, probably… not.
The council’s long-delayed response to the auditors has been drafted by Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense, the council’s Monitoring Officer (who may yet have a few questions to answer himself about wasting thousands of pounds of tax-payers’ money).
In his response – under the snappy title Query from External Auditor relating to former Chief Executive Settlement Agreement – Lawrence-Orumwense writes, “There were significant failings in the officer report to the August 2020 Appointment Committee meeting relating to the approval of the former Chief Executive’s settlement agreement and consequently the decision-making.
“The report fails to set out the facts that gave rise to the breakdown in trust and confidence between the then former Leader and former Chief Executive, any wrongdoing by the Council, the reporting of this by the former Chief Executive and any attempts at conciliation or dispute resolution.”
Lawrence-Orumwense says that there was no legal advice provided to the committee members over the possibility of the council, as Negrini’s employers, being taken to an Employment Tribunal for some form of unfair dismissal, or its chances of success. “The report should have given members of the Appointment [sic] Committee all the relevant information to enable them to make an informed and reasoned decision,” he writes.
There was no reason given in that report for the council paying Negrini £7,718 over the national cap for local government settlement payments, and there was no advice on the basis for making a £48,118.50 gross payment in lieu of notice.
The report also states, “There was no mention of the efforts, if any, made by officers to negotiate or secure a lower quantum of financial settlement… No information was provided to members as to whether the former Chief Executive’s exit could have been secured at a lower cost.”
And it gets worse.
“The process for convening the meeting (ie notice and dispatch of agenda and report) of the Appointment [sic] Committee did not meet the requirements of the Constitution and was potentially unlawful…
“The former Leader of the Council…”, meaning Newman, “…chaired the Appointments Committee. The circumstances that gave rise to the settlement agreement (ie breakdown in relationship) was between the former Leader and the former Chief Executive. There should be serious consideration given to how the Council manage any likely conflicts of interest by ensuring individuals who are the subject of the complaints ‘play absolutely no role in deciding whether those complaints should be settled by making an award to the complainant from public funds’.”
Lawrence-Orumwense fails to elaborate on what the nature of the complaint made about Newman by Negrini may have been.
In a paragraph that appears to have been added to his report as an after-thought, and which somewhat contradicts some of his earlier findings, Lawrence-Orumwense says, “The settlement terms were the subject of extensive legal advice by external solicitors”, and that advice was “adequately reflected” in the council officials’ report to the committee.
More than once in his response to the auditors, Lawrence-Orumwense writes, “For the avoidance of any doubt, for the reasons set out above and considering the Reports in the Public Interest in 2020 and 2021, the Council should not have agreed to settlement payments.”
He states that the appointments committee did have the powers to approve the payment, and based on the advice that they were provided, their decision “was not irrational” – it was just that the decision was “tainted by poor and inadequate advice in the officer report”.
And the Monitoring Officer has found – just as Grant Thornton found repeatedly when analysing the running of the council during Newman’s time – a lack of adequate and proper records of meetings or minutes.
“It appears that concerns about potential leaks were given priority over adhering to constitutional and statutory requirements for notice and agenda papers to be sent to members in advance of the meeting.”
The upshot from all this?
The council must undertake to behave itself in future and conduct its business in accordance with the law and its constitution. Which will come as little relief to all those who have lost their jobs at the council or are seeing their public services axed as a consequence of the self-serving and mismanagement under Newman and Negrini.
Read more: Newman and Negrini’s pay-off: no papers, no notes, no reasons
Read more: #PennReport wanted police probe into possible misconduct
Read more: Watchdog suggests Negrini’s pay-off may have been unlawful
Read more: CEO Negrini’s long campaign to shut down Inside Croydon
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network- By having a comment section, we provide all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Details of how this works can be read by clicking here
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
- Inside Croydon: 3.3million page views in 2021. Seen by 1.6million unique visitors in that 12-month period
So the £438,000 question is….. if the meeting was unlawful and the payment was unlawful, can the money returned to the Council?
“Potential leaks” FFS! This is OUR MONEY and we have a right to know how it was, is, being wasted. Publishing this info It wouldn’t have been a leak – it would have been honest communications. This whole business and the shambolic, contradictory, report needs attention at national level. I’m sure Private Eye will look into this and I hope it’s raised in Parliament.
Newman used our money to buy Negrini’s silence. There’s something very dodgy about this and the two of them. As we might never learn the whole truth and nothing but, unsubstantiated gossip will have to suffice. I heard that what happened was that he ************** details removed on legal advice******** and she ************* and ****** with a cucumber.
And the elected members and senior council officers desire to learn lessons and rectify the past culture is exactly what.
Isn’t the definition of public service, and the purpose of electing politicians, to ensure ‘accountability’.
Negrini was working in the planning department when nunb-skull fuck-wit Tony Newman suggested she take on the CEO role temprarily. Now we hear he lost confidence in her and paid her off.
Can we take Newman to court in the same way Dame Shirley Porter was fined?
One thing is for sure: Kerswell, the current CEO is only hanging around because she wants a payment on leaving, too. That is guaranteed – The Mayor should act now.
No, because Blair abolished the surcharge. Should be brought back.
And “Big” Eric Pickles did away with the District Auditor. No checks. No balances.
I’m generally a Tory but abolition of the District Auditor was a huge, huge mistake by the coalition. Should be brought back (along with the surcharge) post-haste.
Stable door. Bolted. Horse.
So here’s how this went down – common knowledge across the council staff
When the financial fecal matter hit the fan Negrini went to Newman and offered to resign. Newman said no.
A day or so later Newman went to Negrini and said “I accept your resignation”
Negrini said “what resignation? This feels like it could be constructive dismissal”
Negrini lawyered up. Newman soiled himself and paid up to keep her quiet about Brick by Brick and all the other stuff that has and hasn’t come into the public domain since.
The end result: £450k to Negrini and an NDA that prevents the council saying nasty things about her.
She played Tony like a cheap guitar.
That explains much of it. There’s an NDA in place.
Kerswell must be gagging for slice of similar action, positively gagging.
Like stealing sweets from an infant.
It could only happen in this country and those responsible allowed to walk away from the whole situation stinks and I doubt anybody will be held to account or monies returned watch next year’s council tax rise through the roof