1.	I am Paul Janik a councillor first elected on 13 February 2003. My contact address is Town Hall, Bath Road, Slough SL1 3UQ. I have been asked by Messrs Owen White, acting for Mr Raj Kumar, to document my experience of Mr Kumar and directly related matters.
Introduction.
2.	I first met Mr Kumar outside the council chamber in November 2003 within weeks of him joining the council. I was immediately impressed by his professionalism, his dedication to improving the then appallingly disorganised state of the badly failing housing department and by his very strong belief that council officials should never engage in any political activity or give the impression they were taking political sides. Mr Kumar genuinely seemed to care about the council providing a good service.
3.	After that first meeting I had occasional contact with Mr Kumar. Those contacts were always strictly professional. It was a pleasure to work with Mr Kumar. He always seemed so willing and helpful and he always without exception returned my calls. His involvement and co-operation was refreshingly different and very positive. I remember walking over the Bath Road/High Street bridge going from the Town Hall to the Police Station in the pouring rain and thinking, immediately after Mr Kumar had just called me back, how nice it would be if other council managers adopted his friendly and very helpful attitude.
Emails.
4.	On Sunday, 21 November 2004, I received an unexpected email addressed to my publicly known Britwell email address. It was anonymous and the sender had used the identity of "Outraged Tenants". The email was disparaging of Mr Kumar. I responded to that email and received on Monday 22 November 2004 another more disparaging reply from the same anonymous person. The words and terms used in both emails made me strongly believe it was written by someone with an inside knowledge of Slough Borough Council. I thought the sender was perhaps hoping I would publicise the sender's claims against Mr Kumar in the local press. Instead I reported the matter to the police and assisted them with their enquiries.
5.	Subsequently I was extremely worried to learn that similar disparaging emails from the same person had been sent to individual council employees. The existence and tone of those emails alarmed and distressed Mr Kumar. Instead of securing the information (meaning the message and the email headers which the council knew could identify the email sender) the council surprisingly decided to prevent a police investigation by deliberately erasing all traces of those emails from the council's computer system.
6.	The council knew it had a legal duty of care to its employee Mr Kumar yet the council, for reasons unknown to me, decided to ignore its legal duty of care for Mr Kumar by repeatedly failing to take appropriate action. It was not a single accidental failure to act, it was a policy not to act when encountering a series of maliciously motivated attacks against a senior council manager.
7.	The council's lack of response inevitably encouraged the anonymous sender to continue his/her campaign against Mr Kumar thus increasing the psychological pressures on Mr Kumar. One inevitably wonders if the council deliberately wanted to destroy their manager and whether there was any collusion between the anonymous sender and others in the council.
8.	The council's legal failure to act in a fit and proper manner also sent a strong message to colleagues of Mr Kumar that Mr Kumar was not worthy of the council's care, consideration and protection and he was in some manner or other guilty of some, if not all, of the anonymous charges against him. In essence the council's actions had condemned Mr Kumar as guilty of the anonymous charges against him without ever holding a trial.
9.	I verily believe that if such emails had targeted Mrs XXXXX (XXXXX), Mrs Dawn Warwick (housing director), Mrs Liz Terry (assistant chief executive) or Mr Steven Quayle (legal director) then the police would have immediately been called in and copies of the emails secured to assist a police investigation. However those named officials are white and part of the clique which runs the council. Mr Kumar is neither white nor part of that ruling clique.
10.	Despite many public claims of having a close and active partnership with the local police and having many frequent meetings with the police the council deliberately chose not to mention the anonymous emails to the police either formally or informally. There was, it seems, a deliberate decision to conceal the continuing harassment of Mr Kumar. If so, then the council's actions would be, inter alia, a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. 6 August 2006. Council XXXXX is on the public record, in the matter of Cllr. Matloob Hussain's Housing Benefit fraud, for: Previously being involved in what appeared to be a 'cover-up' for what was clearly embarrassing to the Labour Party. Reference      Previously not reporting a serious matter to the police until 5 months after the council had completed its investigation and the guilty councillor had been formerly accused of fraud by Council's chief solicitor Steven Quayle who described it as “totally unacceptable” amounting to “theft of substantial sums of public money” Quotation     Formerly accused     Reported to the police. In the case of Mr Raj Kumar, one must inevitably ask why prompt and affirmative action was not taken, including notifying the police, when Mr Kumar's colleagues received those harassing emails particularly as it was later established the culprits were either a former Council employee and/or that person's spouse who continues to be a Council employee. Interestingly the spouse gave evidence against Mr Kumar as his Council disciplinary hearing. Other unrelated examples will show how extremely selective XXXXX has been in notifying the police of various matters which inevitably suggests the existence of double standards at Slough's Town Hall.
Consultant's Report.
11.	ALMO is an abbreviation for Arms Length Management Organisation. An ALMO is a Limited company (Ltd.) and very similar to a Housing Association (technically known as a RSL which means Registered Social Landlord). It is the government's policy to force councils to transfer council houses from council control, and the council employees involved in the management of those council homes, to Limited companies.
12.	In the first or second week of February 2005, I telephoned Cllr Richard Stokes the Leader of the Council. Cllr Richard Stokes was about 84 years old at the time. The conversation began with Cllr Stokes telling me: "We've got a serious problem Paul. We've just had a very worrying report from a consultant called John Mann. Its a highly confidential report. We have got a problem with Raj Kumar. We won't be able to get an ALMO with Raj Kumar. He hasn't got the right experience. Raj Kumar has got 15 years of Housing Association housing experience but he hasn't got any experience of council housing. Council housing and Housing Association housing are different." 6 August 2006. ALMOs seem to be the same as Housing Associations. Both have their directors and staff, the properties they administer and their maintenance company. Slough Borough Council's dwellings were transferred to an ALMO - People 1st (Slough) Limited - on 1 January 2006, with the same staff and same contractors. Was Richard Stokes mislead by others, with ulterior motives, into his apparently inaccurate beliefs?
13.	I thought housing association housing and council housing were very similar in many respects if not identical so I asked "Surely you can give the bugger some training in council housing so he can do the job?"
14.	Cllr Stokes answered "It will take him 4 years for him to learn about council housing. We don't have the time if the ALMO is to go ahead. The ALMO is in danger. It won't succeed with him. Its unfortunate."
15.	Cllr Stokes then said Housing Director and Deputy Chief Executive Dawn Warwick had shown the report to XXXXX. Cllr Stokes said he has not read the report. Cllr Stokes was clearly implying he was believing without any doubt or hesitation everything the XXXXX and Housing Director had told him. They must have been very persuasive. I appreciated Cllr Stokes' honesty and I regret having to reveal the existence of this private conversation.
16.	Cllr Stokes' amazing revelations greatly worried me. I did not know what to do. It seemed there was a secret plan to dismiss Mr Kumar. It was not the first occasion I had become aware of similar conspiracies against council employees involving XXXXX. It seemed the council has no scruples.
17.	The matter continued to worry me for many days. I felt I had to tell someone so I confided in a reputable person from an external organisation. I believe that person made a note of our conversation.
18.	Approximately 3 to 4 weeks later Mr Kumar was summarily ejected from his office and formerly banned from unattended admission into all council offices. If Mr Kumar's colleagues needed any proof Mr Kumar was guilty of the substance of the malicious emails and/or was a disreputable person his undignified and abrupt ejection from his council office in full view of his staff without any notice or consideration for personal feelings or the impression given to his staff, the council's actions seemed conclusive. The council could have suspended Mr Kumar in the evening after normal closing time. However the council's behaviour indicates the council, or the senior officials making the decisions directly affecting Mr Kumar, wanted maximum publicity and maximum humiliation of Mr Kumar.
19.	After Mr Kumar was suspended from his employment with the council, Dawn Warwick (the director of housing), XXXXX and Cllr Stokes addressed a joint meeting of the Administration councillors (there are 24 councillors in the administration). During that meeting Dawn Warwick made strong innuendoes that Mr Kumar was bad and incompetent. Councillors were told they must not contact Mr Kumar on any occasion. He was to be avoided at all costs.
20.	It is entirely truthful to state that following that meeting councillors who had previously praised Mr Kumar became critical of him and repeated virtually word for word the innuendoes spoken by Dawn Warwick. It is also truthful to state that those councillors actually believed the negative details about Mr Kumar spoken by Dawn Warwick. Regretfully, once again Mr Kumar had been condemned by senior council officials in secret and without any trial taking place. It was a shocking and disgraceful episode which demonstrated the responsible officials had neither reservations about their personal conduct nor about the wider implications for the council as a public authority.
21.	This incident was grossly unfair to Mr Kumar as he was denied an opportunity to defend his good reputation. The innuendoes were made in the expectation Mr Kumar would never discover what was said in private to a group of circa 24 administration councillors. It was a cowardly attack by senior council officials on a defenceless member of staff. The senior council officials could have agreed a joint statement with Mr Kumar in advance of that meeting but they chose to defame him instead by casting slurs on his good reputation and, by doing so, they exposed the council to unliquidated damages should Mr Kumar win an action for defamation. However since these senior officials run the council they will most likely escape the consequences of their actions.
XXXXX's Gagging Order.
22.	All the councillors received a signed circular from XXXXX dated 2 September 2005. It was headed "Member Involvement in Officer Disciplinary Matters". A copy of the entire text now follows: A recent case has highlighted the need to remind Members that they should not involve themselves in disciplinary matters concerning council officers. Some councillors have been approached to provide witness statements or act as witnesses on behalf of a council officer currently preparing a case for a council disciplinary hearing. If you are approached, I would advise you as a councillor that under the Member and Officer Code of Conduct, you must not involve yourself in disciplinary matters relating to council employees. If you are contacted, you may need to explain that the council's code of conduct, that you have all signed, precludes you being involved in disciplinary matters within the council and I would consequently advise you that if you do not want to risk breaching the code you should say that you cannot give a statement or act as a witness. if you have any queries about what is said to you or concerns Isabella Freeman or Bob Edwards will be able to offer you advice. Yours sincerely. XXXXX
23.	XXXXX's circular was totally unexpected. I immediately regarded it as a personal attempt by XXXXX to unlawfully prevent Mr Kumar receiving a fair disciplinary hearing by gagging potential witnesses. I have corresponded with the council about XXXXX's gagging attempt. That correspondence is available on the Internet at http:///www.slough.info/janik/j35/j35.html
24.	I have had several conversations with Isabella Freeman, in her office and in the legal department's conference room, relating to XXXXX's gagging circular. Mrs Freeman stated she was personally surprised XXXXX had issued the gagging circular using that combination of words as 4 or 5 drafts had been prepared by the council's legal department. The inference was the legal department had been instructed by XXXXX to devise a method of stopping councillors giving evidence and the legal department had carefully prepared a selection of wording designed to dissuade councillors from giving evidence. However it appears XXXXX thought the legal department's wording was too weak to achieve her purpose of stopping councillors giving evidence and had therefore substituted her personal choice of wording.
25.	During our conversations Mrs Freeman accidentally mentioned on several occasions that she could not take any decisions without the prior approval of XXXXX. This was surprising. Mrs Freeman's revelations gave me an unambiguous impression XXXXX was totally controlling the council's case against Mr Kumar. Even relatively minor matters had to be referred to XXXXX for approval. It was an unusual situation.
Sue Morris Leaking Council Information.
26.	I understand Mr Kumar has been accused of leaking council information to a Mrs Sue Morris, a member of the ALMO board and a member of the Slough Federation of Tenants and Residents. Mrs Morris is then accused of giving that information to me and I am alleged to have given the information to the local newspapers.
27.	I totally deny any such activity. I have never had any dealings or contact with Mrs Morris. I have only seen her about 3 times in my life, all occasions at council organised meetings. The allegation is blatantly false and clearly malicious.
28.	I am aware XXXXX has personally intervened in other staff disciplinary matters and has shown a totally ruthless and uncaring attitude to those fellow employees.
Observation.
29.	I welcome the return of Mr Kumar to his housing job at the council. He always supported my attempts to deal with the many bad performance problems caused by the grossly failing repair and maintenance service provided by Interserve. The Interserve situation is often like a bad nightmare with problems ignored and some council tenants being subjected to a sub-standard service many would consider totally unacceptable.
This statement is true to the best of my personal knowledge and belief. Paul Janik. Friday, 11 November 2005.
05E7036