Was Anna Klonowski’s investigation truly independent? Wirral Council still to reply – 9 months on

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

Blue information sign with direction arrow uid 1275249

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/consultant_anna_klonowski_declar

The above FoI request was placed in May 2012.  Last spring.  Wirral Council acknowledged receipt 7 months later in December.  This winter.  So it’s the customary, not exactly timely response.

It’s pretty much the kind of thing we’ve come to expect when approaching Wirral Council in good faith for public information ~ a  towering and pretty impregnable brick wall of inertia.

You might gain the impression they frankly don’t give a damn.

Link to news that Wirral will be the only council in the land, monitored by the Information Commissioner – starting in January 2013

But at least while they sit in silence, and in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, and we continue to wait for something to happen, we have an opportunity to discuss the issues brought up in this request, one by one.

  • AKA Associates, headed by local government consultant Anna
    Klonowski has a track record of working with Wirral Council, in the
    areas of training of senior officers and councillors, consultation
    on governance, and “independent” investigation. According to press
    reports, and the council website, it appears AKA’s associations
    with the Council as an “independent” consultant are ongoing and
    developing further

That’s right.  This ‘independent’ external investigator had a prior association with Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, which began five years before AKA were appointed to externally investigate, back in 2006.  It took the form of ‘governance training’ provided to senior officers and councillors.

Despite several written requests – here is a selection from Twitter – I’ve never been provided with any information to allay public concern over the true impartiality or ‘independence’ of the Klonowski inquiry.  The people involved are all public servants, working for you and me, but there are serious, compelling and ongoing questions, raised in the interests of openness, transparency, fairness and democracy, but yet to be answered:

  1. Why was AKA chosen ahead of other qualified individuals and organisations – many without a prior association?
  2. What exactly were the company’s credentials for taking on such a complex and wide-ranging inquiry?
  3. Did Councillor Green’s choice fully comply with the Council’s policy and procedure for the commissioning of external investigations?
  4. With being a former trainer, did AKA stand to gain or lose in any way by the decisions / findings / recommendations reached?
  5. Why did AKA fail to investigate Balls Road Supported Living in the same way West Wirral was looked at? (The AKA “not enough time” excuse was inadequate and may have breached the remit)
  6. Why did AKA stubbornly refuse to minute or dual-tape-record their investigations with participants of the external review despite many requests?  The chance to record a completely accurate version of events was quickly lost forever

Why do these questions need to be answered?  Because AKA do not appear to have declared any prior interest or affiliation when the then leader Jeff Green commissioned them to carry out a review which eventually cost the local taxpayer £250,000.

Also, having a prior connection, that of providing governance training to councillors and senior officers, Anna Klonowski Associates seems to have stood to gain (or lose), dependent on the eventual outcome.  It’s not in the interests of the wider public, to entrust an organisation whose fortunes clearly rode on the outcome they themselves would reach.  In fact, it seems to have been a forseeable and avoidable conflict of interest which could have interfered with the nature of the conclusions eventually arrived at.

AKA found that all 66 councillors were completely blameless – which many existing staff, former staff, and members of the public understandably found astonishing.  The problem for AKA was: if they’d found a number of councillors culpable, it may have interfered with future funding decisions, and put an end to their association with the council; an association that AKA had spent  many years building and nurturing.  With ‘playing safe’, and clearing the decision makers, there was no direct obstacle to AKA continuing to provide their ongoing consultancy services.

I’m not saying this is what actually transpired, and that these were the reasons for the decisions made – but we can’t rule anything out or in – because there has been either silence or a dearth of information.  And to the sceptical, hard-bitten Wirral Council watcher, there was always the potential for ‘shenanigans’ to occur.  And given the council’s proven historical abuse of power, this would not look out of place.

The public can’t be blamed for harbouring serious misgivings – doubts which have never been safely put to bed.

(More to follow…..)

I wonder what’s happening with this?  I haven’t heard a thing

— Wirral In It 2gether (@Wirral_In_It) January 13, 2013

UPDATED: Cheques, lies and video tape. Wirral Council incapable of apologising…

Site Meter

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

hand writing a check BE uid 1342671

Woman whispering secret into man s ear uid 1271501

Blonde Caucasian movie star posing on film set behind director s clapper uid 1356093

10th November 2012

This first Freedom of Information request, placed with Wirral Council’s Information Governance section is looking for costs and further information around the reputed ordering and supply of a turquoise and green range of plush office furniture, reputedly amounting to £30,000 and ordered from a company called Jenkinsons Office Supplies.  In addition to this, rather than employing elbow grease in the traditional way, a new Town Hall machination, in the shape of a dishwasher was also placed on order, and presumably by now, this will be plumbed in and churning away.

FoI request here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/new_furniture_equipment_for_offi

The second request is related to the “What Really Matters” consultation, recently undertaken by the council.  As part of this strategy, a top local creative design company, Mills Media, which numbers amongst its clients: Newsquest (publishers of the Wirral Globe); Cammel Laird; Shell; Muller, and the local police, was commissioned to create a top quality video (duration 13 minutes).

Here is a link to excerpts from the Wirral Council video, produced under the title “What Really Matters” and starring CEO Graham Burgess and Council Leader Phil Davies.

FoI request here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/marketing_advertising_agency_wor

Mills Media were also on hand in November 2010 to cover this ‘momentous occasion’.

To finish on a positive, here are some words of comfort from Wirral Council’s new CEO Graham Burgess:

We therefore need to spend less on ourselves in order to help mitigate the impact of the cuts on our most vulnerable residents……

UPDATE   13th December 2012

Yesterday, the Wirral Globe picked up on the Mills Media FoI request and ran a story under the headline “Slasher Movie: Wirral Council Spends £5,700 on ‘cuts’ video” – to bring the Wirral public’s attention to the thousands that were spent on a professional video “starring Wirral Council’s political leader and its Chief Executive”:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/10104361.UPDATED__Slasher_movie__Wirral_Council_spends___5_700_on__cuts__video/?ref=mc

I’ve managed to locate these shorter videos on the Council’s website (none of which feature Councillor Phil Davies):

Families and Wellbeing video (06:11)

[excerpt: “The Council has a duty to protect its most vulnerable adults, children and families”]

Transformation and Resources video (06:31)

[excerpt: “The Council is also proposing to reduce what is spent on marketing, through things like advertising…”]

Regeneration and Environment video (06:07)

[excerpt: “…First thing you told us was to spend less on ourselves…to do everything possible to reduce the impact of spending cuts…”]

I’m not sure what happened to the original 13 minute video, but the link from the Mills Media web page has never worked.  Maybe the Chief Executive’s introductory section and the three separate areas added up to 13 minutes originally?

UPDATE   18th December 2012

Here, we have proof that if you keep the pressure up on Wirral Council, eventually they will do something amazingly stupid.

They were found to have lied in response to this Freedom of Information request re: Mills Media and the “What Really Matters” video(s).

Here’s a link to an article in the Wirral Globe website

Somebody at the council decided to massage the figures regarding exactly how much was spent on video(s) made at Mills Media.  In response to my request which asked for everything across all departments for this financial year, they sent back an answer of £5,722.  Which misrepresented the true cost and was out by approximately £7,500 !

They were caught out lying, but refused to apologise and even roped in a learning disabled person to publicly back them up – which to me seems desperately cruel, low and devious of them.

Councillor Blakeley has reported this deception to the Information Commissioner and asked the Council to apologise to the Wirral public.

I expect to see a public apology soon – for lying – and hopefully for what they did to Ms Carter, and it will be reproduced on these pages.

UPDATE   21st December 2012

It looks like Chief Executive Mr Burgess is not capable of climbing down and accepting that his staff lied.  Instead of an apology, it’s yet another two finger salute from the Council to the local public:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/10123040.No_public_apology_for_misleading_statement/?action=success

…in other news, Wirral have earned a gong from satirical magazine Private Eye – the prestigious golden bung award AND they’ve been forced to reveal a £5 million black hole in their accounts, as reported in the Wirral Globe.

But given this tendency to ‘mis-speak’, how do we know it isn’t £50 million?

UPDATE   7th January 2013

Still no apology.  More on this from our friends at Wirral Leaks:

http://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/vexed-sighs-and-videotape/

and…

http://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/sorry-seems-to-be-the-hardest-word/

#FoI Request ~ Secret agreement allowing suspended Ian Coleman to leave Wirral Council

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

5th October 2012

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/secret_agreement_allowing_suspen

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

On 3rd October 2012, former Acting Chief Executive; former Finance
Director, and suspended senior officer Ian Coleman received
permission, as part of a protected process, concealed from public
view, to leave his employment with Wirral Council.  According to the
press, this is believed to involve the granting of an early
retirement package worth £82,000.

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/996522…

Above is a link to a news story published the next day in the
Wirral Globe, which reported this matter.  The comments beneath the
article also indicate the strength of feeling amongst an outraged
public.

The former CEO, Jim Wilkie, who himself is the subject of another
freedom of information request, currently breaching the FOI Act:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ag…

…admitted to years of learning disabled abuse by the council.
This was followed by the departure of two senior social services
officers in January of this year.  It is still not clear whether
these two individuals WERE leaving as a result of their involvement
in abuse AND whether they signed compromise agreements with gagging
clauses.  As of today, despite several assurances, Wirral have not
responded to the following FoI request and are many months overdue
and again in breach of the FOI Act:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/da…

The Wirral public have still yet to see any sign of accountability
or a reckoning towards the as yet anonymous employees who
perpetrated this sustained abuse against learning disabled people
over a period of several years.

There were also abuses of power, as found by two independent
investigations – but which remain unpunished. Admission to learning
disabled abuse here (See 7.1):

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert…

Please provide all information you have which is connected to the
departure of Mr Coleman.  This will relate to meetings, hearings,
discussions, reports, and may be stored in the form of recorded
minutes, verbatim and non-verbatim notes, emails, letters, memos,
aide memoirs, documents, whether electronically or manually stored.

Please confirm and provide details of the existence of any payments
made to Mr Coleman in relation to his departure.  This will indicate
which position / role he was fulfilling and the total amount(s) of
final salary pension monies released attached to that role.  This
will include precise amounts, the method of payment and the budget
from which the payment was / is to be derived.

Please confirm details of the existence of any “compromise
agreement” or “confidentiality agreement” or “compromise contract”
or “confidentiality contract” agreed and signed by Mr Coleman in
relation to this departure or to his involvement in abuse or
malpractice.  This will include confirmation and description of any
‘gagging clauses’ and whether a positive / neutral / negative
reference was provided regarding potential future employment.

In light of the [strangely] recent discovery by Wirral’s Chief
Internal Auditor David Garry that “compromise contracts” were NOT
being recorded but were being arranged behind closed doors, beyond
any councillor scrutiny and beyond view of the public:

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents…

…please describe the exact process that was followed and supply the
documents, reports, aide memoirs, notes, etc. that were created and
recorded as part of the NEW process.  Please take a deep breath
before you do this, and ponder your overriding duty to act not out
of self-interest, but fairly and impartially in the unbending
service of us the public.

Please provide the names and addresses of all organisations /
bodies involved in providing legal advice to Mr Coleman. Please
also provide details of meetings which occurred including times,
dates and matters discussed.
Please confirm the details of any disciplinary charges either
planned or levelled against Mr Coleman in relation to any failures
/ malpractice / abuse which may or may not have brought about his
departure from the Council.

If Mr Coleman was provided with a “clean bill of health” regarding
his time served at the council, please provide a copy of this /
these document(s).

Please redact documents as you see fit, and remove any personally
sensitive information in accordance with the requirements of the
Data Protection Act.”

Please be mindful that if Mr Coleman was the “Acting Chief
Executive” and fulfilling that role, and paid / rewarded in line
with that role as part of this secret agreement, I am making you
aware that case law within this area, combined with the legitimate
and compelling public interest demands a far greater degree of
openness,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

6th October 2012

This is probably covered by the above, but just to be certain, I’ve added the following:

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Further to the publicised £82,000 figure, please include the total
amounts of any additional severance payments, the existence of
which may not have been referred to within the publicity material
released by Wirral Council.

Indeed this figure may be calculated subsequent to 3rd October
2012. Please look for it, and if found, supply it.

Given the ongoing climate of ongoing scandal on Wirral, the public
interest is building very quickly on this important case, and I
believe it will need to be satisfied with early answers,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Response in from FoI section at Wirral:

From: InfoMgr, FinDMT
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
2 November 2012

Good Morning

Thank you for your request below, Wirral Council can confirm there were no
additional payments.  Please see link where the report has been published
on our web site.

[1]http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDoc…

Thank you for your enquiry, kind regards

Kind regards

Tracy O’Hare

Information Management

Wirral Council

And then, three days later:

From: InfoMgr, FinDMT
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
5 November 2012

Good Morning

Thank you for your request below, Wirral Council can confirm this is
information held with a view to publication at a future date and considers
this information exempt from disclosure under section 22 FOIA 2000 as
information that the authority is intending to publish at a future date

You have the right under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
to ask for an internal review of the refusal of the information
requested.  Please would you direct any request for an internal review to
Mr Michael Rowan, Legal and Member Services, Department of Law, HR and
Asset Management, Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, CH44 8ED
You do also have the right to complain to the information Commissioner, if
you are dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review, whose office
is situated at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45
Fax: 01625 524510  www.ico.gov.uk <[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/>

Thank you for your enquiry, kind regards

Tracy O’Hare
Information Management
Wirral Council

My response:

From: Paul Cardin
5 November 2012

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,

I have requested a diverse range of information and now seek some
further clarification.

In order for me to proceed, please re-read my original request and
respond more precisely on the nature of the information which you
have a settled intention to publish to the general public in the
future.

OR… confirm the following:

o Apart from the existence of ‘additional payments’, which was
previously dealt with, the authority is engaging a Section 22
exemption on the remaining full range of diverse information which
I have requested.

Once I have your response, which I hope arrives this week, I will
consider whether to request an internal review or not,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

I am asking the council to list the information which it is going to publish.  I asked for a varied spread of info.  They’d come back and told me there weren’t any additional payments, so is it now going to publish everything else I asked for at a later date?  Does the Section 22 exemption used here cover everything else?  If not, then the exemption is NOT engaged and will fail.

UPDATE   6th December 2012

As they hadn’t responded, I prodded them as follows:

From: Paul Cardin
6 December 2012

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan
Borough Council’s handling of my FOI request ‘Secret Agreement
allowing suspended Acting CEO to depart Wirral Council’.

You appear to have ignored my email, sent on 5th November, which
read as follows:

From: Paul Cardin

5 November 2012

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,

I have requested a diverse range of information and now seek some
further clarification.

In order for me to proceed, please re-read my original request and
respond more precisely on the nature of the information which you
have a settled intention to publish to the general public in the
future.

OR… confirm the following:

o Apart from the existence of ‘additional payments’, which was
previously dealt with, the authority is engaging a Section 22
exemption on the remaining full range of diverse information which
I have requested.

Once I have your response, which I hope arrives this week, I will
consider whether to request an internal review or not,

Yours sincerely,

I gave you the opportunity to clarify, but my reply DID NOT arrive
that week and I am still waiting for a response.

Please take the above into account and carry out the internal
review according to the FOIA i.e. within 20 working days, or within
40 working days if there are exceptional circumstances,

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/se…

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

They responded today, failed to clarify, as requested and referred me back to their response of 5th November, ignoring my request for an internal review.  I rang them up and told them they were in breach of the law if they failed to acknowledge it and didn’t act on it within 20 working days (40 working days in exceptional circumstances).

So they sent the following:

From: InfoMgr, FinDMT
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
6 December 2012

Good Afternoon

Wirral Council acknowledges your request for an internal review; this has
been passed to the department of Law HR and asset management.

Thank you for your correspondence, kind regards.

Tracy O’Hare

Information Management

Wirral Council

And so, ushered in is the next period of silence.  How long it lasts is anybody’s guess.

As far as publication of the information goes, ‘at a future date’ is the assurance.

See you next year?
Site Meter

#FoI request ~ Discovery of Wirral Council’s failure to record compromise agreements

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

Face of a man who is covering his eyes uid 1460818

“Let’s close our eyes everyone.  Because then….

….it’s not really happening”

Total numbers for Compromise Agreements (full & final settlements for departing employees)

I lodged a previous request on this subject back in January 2011.  This was one of 345 separate requests made to English councils at the time.  Wirral trailed in 345th…. the very last council to respond, taking 216 working days to provide the following:

2006: 2
2007: 1
2008: 3
2009: 2
2010: 4

The FoI / DP gagging clause had never been used.

I thought, given the Chief Internal Auditor’s recent finding of high priority fundamental risks in this area, and a failure to scrutinise and record anything, not only was I left scratching my head on how they’d provided figures for years 2006 to 2010, but the time had come to try and draw back the veil that’s been cynically pulled across, shine a spotlight into the gloom, and update the public on how many compromise agreements were issued throughout 2011 – a year of great turbulence for the Council.

Compromise agreements are important and sombre legal documents, and often contain “gagging clauses” in order to keep the employee and the issuing body quiet.  They rule out future legal recourse and are associated with the handing over of large sums of public money, aimed at pacifying complainants, whistleblowers (who can’t in law actually be gagged) or those who have been subject to disciplinary allegations or investigations.  In other words ~ they are the lynchpin to an extremely touchy and sensitive area.

Sharp-eyed readers may have spotted in the above report that David Garry, Chief internal auditor, has failed to highlight the subject of  ‘compromise agreements’ in the introduction to the report, whilst making room for and headlining more mundane subjects such as “the overdue audit of Bidston Village Primary School”.

In her report, independent investigator Anna Klonowski has already headlined that such dysfunctional, secretive behaviour, followed by a peculiar brand of selective reporting is all in a day’s work for Wirral Council, ending her 249 pages with, “If positive and constructive change is to occur a clear articulation of ‘this is how we do business in Wirral’ needs to be developed and modelled every day by those in leadership positions throughout the tiers of management.  This will need to be supported by the development of an ability to constructively challenge those who do not adhere to these behaviours.” *waves at Mr Garry*

So, on it goes despite Klonowski.  The habitual kneejerk lurch towards the dysfunctional…. continuing ‘as abnormal’.  The “Wirral Way” of doing things never bodes well for anyone banking on integrity breaking out, or ideals such as openness, transparency, and the free and unhindered flow of information.

Maybe it’s just too early to usher in normality.  And with no accountability in sight, maybe normality is a bridge too far?

Here is the new FoI request, which was lodged today:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_annual_figures_for_comprom_347

Please check back for updates.

UPDATE   9th October 2012

Appended to the above FoI request:

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

In relation to the above request, please also supply the figures
for THIS calendar year, 2012, to date. As follows:

Following on from the 2011 END DATE of the previous request….the
annual figures for the total number of current employees or
ex-employees of Wirral Borough Council who have signed compromise
agreements directly related to the resolving of dispute(s) /
grievance(s) / internal and external investigation(s) /
whistleblowing incident(s).

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

UPDATE    30th October 2012

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan
Borough Council’s handling of my FOI request ‘Total Annual Figures
for Compromise Agreements, etc.’.

You have failed to respond to this query within the statutory 20
working days allowed. Please ask a senior officer to carry out an
internal review and also provide the person’s name, role and
contact details including phone number. Please also provide a
receipt for my request for review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to…

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

UPDATE   28th November 2012

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

It is now over 20 working days since I requested an internal
review.

As you are again in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, I
will now turn to the Information Commissioner and lodge an appeal /
complaint,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Site Meter

Wirral Council to be monitored AGAIN for poor performance by Information Commissioner

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

Clock over person s eye uid 1460629

‘TIMELINESS’

21st December 2012

As Christmas approaches, it was announced today that Wirral Council are one of only 4 public bodies to face a three month period of ICO monitoring, commencing in January 2013.  They are the only English Council to face the regime this time around.

It’s happened before, but the same staff and councillors appear to have learned very little; unlike the other 18 (count them) councils mentioned at this link – who appear to have upped their game and not re-appeared on the list this time.  Is this second appearance on the ‘naughty list’ another first for Wirral?  Who knows?  But they could begin to make a habit of it, given the convergence of their deep-seated,  unchecked arrogance and the wider climate of cuts.

Having dealt with Wirral Council for some years, the news doesn’t surprise me one bit.  Let me reassure you, they are every bit as bad as this decision to monitor implies – and probably worse.  I won’t trot out all of my dismal experiences here, but here’s a link to some analysis of a few of my own requests, which will be updated in the New Year, but should give you a flavour of the inertia that the public are greeted with by default – and the level of importance this council attaches to the public’s statutory right to Freedom of Information and Data Protection.

In the following article, whoever the Liverpool Echo interviewed from Wirral felt it necessary to blame the public once again by indicating that one citizen is the source of a fifth of all complaints.  And yet again, there’s an inability to acknowledge that they’ve been mired in scandal upon fiasco upon further scandal since well into the last century.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/12/22/mersey-council-under-scrutiny-over-freedom-of-information-failures-100252-32478176/

As I’ve said before, no organisation can grapple with a deep-seated problem such as this until self-awareness fully hits home and it stops going down the easy route of blaming other people for its own desperate, self-inflicted failures.

As far as Freedom of Information is concerned, with the wider climate of cuts and job losses, and with Wirral Council’s tendency to hit out and take potshots at the public who voted them into power, I expect more of the same and for the abusive masters clutching the whip hand to thrash about and sink even deeper into the miserable black hole of their own creation.

Wirral just don’t get it – Freedom of Information report to Councillors- 3rd September 2012

Please see the following link to an article in the Wirral Globe, dated today, 3rd September 2012:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/9907712.Concerns_over_Freedom_of_Information_workload/?action=success

Then read the following report, written up by Wirral’s “Head of IT Services”.  My first observation is… Why mix in LGO complaints with FoI complaints?  Not very helpful to conflate the two, and a muddying of the water.

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50005983/FOIREPORT.pdf

As far as Freedom of Information goes, much of the emphasis throughout this report seems to fall upon unnamed members of the public, who’ve had the temerity to raise a large number of requests.  There’s a reference to a table titled, “Top Ten Originators of FOI Requests” – a kind of rogues’ gallery, which is worth reproducing here.

Good that they resisted the urge to reproduce citizens’ names publicly in this report.  That would have been both stupid & outrageous.

Originator 1 has made eleven times more requests than Originator 2.  I’d suggest that if, as the data controller, you’re justified in going down the road of blaming a small number of people making a large number of requests – which you certainly are not – then this is your problem person !  1 person making 245.  There’s no need for the rest of the table in fact.

And who exactly decides what is excessive?  Are Originators 8, 9 and 10, (making 7 requests each in a whole year) too much for Wirral Council to cope with?  Do they deserve to be lumped in?  Give us a break !

It’s quite clear that “Originators” 2 thru 10 are merely “padding” – having only made between 22 and 7 requests in the whole year, or a total of 98 and an average of just over 10 (less than one a month) between them.  Can they really be part of a groundswell of unseemly and pernicious FoI requesting breaking out all across Wirral?

As rumour and innuendo seem to have been given free rein, it appears our elected councillors, the intended recipients of this report, are being urged to believe that despite the council doing its utmost, a small number of people (with an axe to grind?) …are making life very difficult for hard-pressed FoI officers.  How can staff cope if the sheer volume of requests prevents them from doing their jobs effectively?

It doesn’t suit the report’s author to bring everything into context and refer to any of the important statutory provisions and protections detailed within the Act.  It seems to have been more convenient for him to invoke an ‘out of control public’, egged on by stories in the newspapers, then juxtapose that alongside carefully selected keywords e.g. vexatious; repeated; obsessive; harassing; causing distress; significant burden; distraction; disruption; annoyance; lacking serious purpose or value.

Neither does Mr Paterson mention the fact that Wirral have dedicated only two staff to the problem ~ one data / info professsional and an admin assistant.  Which kind of sums up the level of importance Wirral have attached to addressing the public’s statutory information and data querying rights.

Sadly, the report’s purpose is to run, headlong, with the tactics of smear.  The heavy hint to councillors is that all of these requests are somehow “vexatious”.  There’s no reference to the fact that a person / requester cannot be vexatious,  because the truth would be inconvenient in this case – and detract from the message.


In addition to the above, the formal ICO description of the “vexatious request” is helpfully given to councillors by the report writer – seemingly intended to “point them in the right direction”.  And despite the report’s clear desire to cast far and wide for blame, rather than look inward, and perhaps put the focus onto the council’s own resources, there are some curious omissions closer to home:

  • The person making 245 requests in the last year has not been challenged for placing vexatious requests – possibly because not one of those requests is repetitious, invalid or frivolous in any way and therefore cannot be refused under the Act.  Well, I can’t think of any other reason not to get tough with “Mr Sheffield” !
  • The Freedom of Information Act 2000 makes absolutely no provision for data controllers to shift the blame across to “requesters who make a large number of requests” in order to mask their own poor performance – which the council will know – but it seems they’d rather gloss over all that and spin some irresponsible nonsense to the wider public (Wirral Globe) & councillors (the report)
  • The Freedom of Information Act 2000 doesn’t place a limit on the number of requests an individual can make to any particular data controller.  Every public body, including Councils, NHS Trusts, the police, has statutory obligations, and is required to meet and resource those accordingly.  Wirral’s information governance appears woefully under-resourced, with practitioners preferring instead to fail, plod on, muddy the water, and stir up a cynical smoke screen
  • The erstwhile head of FoI, and Acting Chief Executive Ian Coleman is currently suspended from work

There’s another angle.  Wirral compares itself to “other local authorities” and claims that it is receiving a “disproportionately higher amount of enquiries compared to those of a similar size”.  The public don’t doubt that at all, but there ARE reasons for this.  There are some rather startling yet unacknowledged facts; in the shape of quite horrendous albatrosses, draped across the shoulders of Wirral Council:

The above list is by no means exhaustive.  Wirral recently let slip the identity of another public-spirited whistleblower. It was published in full view of the world on the council’s website.  Many have interpreted this as a deliberate “shot across the bows” of any principled staff members who may be contemplating blowing the whistle themselves.

There are countless more scandals and fiascos, too numerous to mention.  Predictably, ‘other councils’, similarly sized or not, don’t tend to boast such horrific roll-calls of bullying, historical malpractice, attempted cover up, repeated abuse and suspected impropriety, going back well over a decade, and on into the last century.  Hence, the all too understandable response from the public, a legitimate and compelling desire as concerned citizens (who hand over a great deal of money in council tax): to find out what the hell is going on.

Given the above Council report, which is just the latest addition to the ongoing fiasco, the people of Wirral must be doubtful that those at the top have ever digested and fully understood the AKA report.  With the situation so dire, and with vulnerable people still struggling under this basket case of a Council, self-awareness is all.  Sadly, the top people appear myopic at best, blind at worst to progressive solutions – and are falling into the same old traps all over again.

There’s no perceived commitment to good old-fashioned public service – despite the calling in of an LGA “improvement board” – which has already been seen to omit important issues raised by the local public from the minutes of its public meetings.  I attended an improvement board meeting on 22nd June this year, went before them and lodged a clear and detailed question on accountability for people believed to have been involved in abuse.  These were two former senior officers who dodged any disciplinary sanction, and were then paid off and gagged (total £220,000) within a legal document.  When the minutes arrived, they’d been generalised; homogenised, with all the discomfiting points related to the clear enabling of abuse omitted.

Thank you Wirral.  Job done.  How convenient.  How self-serving; but not very open; not very transparent; not at all accountable, and certainly NOT an “improvement”.

The fact we’ve had no reckoning for past abuses means they’re still locked into complete denial ~ spinning, protecting, shielding and concealing everything within a destructive vacuum – a kind of black hole that consumes all, destroys any light, and succeeds only in “churning out heat and smoke”; the intention being to protect the power, obscure the issues, and pave the way for future speculators to descend into a pit of abuse, knowing they can emerge clean, and loaded down with a stash of easy money to disappear with over the horizon when the time comes.

That’s what happens with proven basket case authorities, blind to accountability.  Chancers and those on the make see an opportunity – and become desperate to join in and raid the public purse – where they know there’s a good chance they’ll get away with it.

Link to total number of Wirral WhatDoTheyKnow FoI requests & number of concerned citizens following this authority

24th November 2012

Word on the street is that Geoff Paterson, author of the above disingenuous and smearing report will be looking for a new job soon.

Site Meter

Opinion of Senior Counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC, on Freedom of Information “ban” by Cheshire West and Chester Council –

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

Silhouette of scale

Following Cheshire West & Chester Council’s hideously misconceived “ban” on my statutory FoI and personal Data Protection querying rights, the time has come to release the opinion of Senior Counsel Hugh Tomlinson QC, who has granted his permission.

This “ban” lasted for 20 months, between October 2009 (my leaving date) and June 2011 – original www.whatdotheyknow.com request here – It took an instruction to possibly the country’s most senior privacy lawyer for the council to realise its behaviour was ultra vires and it had gotten too big for its little boots.

The “ban” flew in the face of the council’s own internal Freedom of Information and Data Protection policies (and certainly every other council’s policies up and down the country).  These are always phrased to embrace accessibility, to promote openness and transparency and to speak up for the free and uninterrupted flow of information.  However, the Council’s most senior Data Protection person on site, who understandably had a large hand in drafting Council policy, admitted to me that he was “never consulted” over this defensive and retrograde step.

Neither was this “ban” democratically scrutinised by elected councillors – possibly because there was a danger elected officials may have taken their role seriously and “raised a red flag” upon spotting the folly of it all.

So it became the private, back-office, unscrutinised work of the monitoring officer, Simon Goacher, and his “team” – as trotted out in an email, heavy on the “flannel”, from Councillor Alan McKie, chair of the Staffing Committee.  Despite the council’s lofty public claims to “democratic accountability”, when a “ban” on freedom of information and data protection became a necessity, the legitimate and compelling public interest never really got a look in.

The council have now claimed, in response to a subsequent FoI request of mine that no information is held” on this subject.

With that, the obvious question arises, “Why on earth did they feel the need to do it in the first place?

And now, into the mix comes Hugh Tomlinson QC’s opinion, which gives clarity, and makes an important distinction between historical and future requests.  For me, the key statement is made in paragraph 5:

Opinion of Counsel

The Council failed to give any assistance by clarifying the meaning of the clause, preferring instead to cave in enigmatically.

With the prospect of serious litigation being mounted, the council declared they “did not accept the provisions within the agreement were unlawful”, but it was all a long time ago, and they were now “happy to confirm that [I] was not prohibited from making requests under the [FoI and DP Acts]”.

I’ve interpreted this as the Council running away, taking their little ball with them, and turning back to shout, “We were right all along anyway….”

My reading of counsel’s opinion is:

If an employer proposes a compromise agreement with an FoI / DP gagging clause which seeks to prevent an employee or ex-employee from making FoI / DP requests of this employer, specifically related to the historical circumstances which have led to an employee’s departure, that is OK.

If an employer proposes a compromise agreement with an FoI / DP gagging clause which seeks to prevent an employee or ex-employee from making FoI / DP requests of this employer (or any other employer) in the future that is not OK.

The fact that the agreement is signed in the presence of independent legal advice appears to have some bearing on the former, but not the latterwhich appears to maintain that contract law trumps statutory rights.

But I am NOT a lawyer.  Any comments on this subject are most welcome…

Site Meter

UPDATED – Concealing malpractice / enabling abuse with a Compromise Agreement / Gagging Clause

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

Gagged prisoner tied up with rope uid 1402469

FoI and Local Authority Gagging Clauses

Some years ago, a council employee, in dispute and soon to lose his job, opted to sign a compromise agreement.  The document and its terms were placed before him, as a ‘full and final settlement’.  All arrangements were funded by the employer; independent legal advice was given, and the solicitor’s signature secured.  All legal requirements had therefore been met.  The employee’s signature on the dotted line would forfeit his right to an Employment Tribunal, along with the option to pursue any existing or future legal claims against the employer.  All appeared to be in order and the employee’s pen hovered.

But an extra clause had been inserted, compelling him to forgo his right to submit any request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act 1998 – from that day forward – and not apparently restricted to this employer.  This very particular “gagging clause”, perhaps in use for the first time, had been devised by the local authority’s legal team.

It was a very difficult decision to make even without this, and much rested upon it.  In addition to the loss of his job and the personal upheaval, there was now an underlying legal poser to wrestle with, “Can I successfully contract out of my FOI / DP information request rights?”

But the deal was soon done, and a promising career was cut short, the pain eased slightly by the payment of a small ‘redundancy’ amount.

Such was the life-changing power in the hands of a consensus of council top brass, brought together for the closing chapter of a bitter and entrenched dispute, spanning almost 3 years.  With a failed raft of trumped up disciplinary charges recently behind them, careful steps were now being taken to save face and reach agreement.  Confidentiality shrouded everything.  The employee, a family man with young children, knew he wouldn’t be welcomed back.  Blowing the whistle had lost him his livelihood.  He’d faced a stark choice: sign here, and accept what’s on offer, or sign there, fortnightly at the job centre.  Concede, or take your chances at an employment tribunal in the New Year, where the outcome will be a lot less certain.

And come January, once the situation had calmed and the adrenalin levels had dropped, another question came to the forefront – “What would the legal consequences be of an approach to the council for information?”

This was where the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) first went onto the record:

“If your former employer refused to deal with your requests they would be likely to be in breach of the above legislation……. However if you exercise your information request rights there may be consequences such as legal action for breach of contract. Whether the clause you mention is a fair contract term would depend on the particular circumstances involved and the nature of the agreement you signed.”

The special gagging clause in use here had provided a unique twist, pressing the ICO into declaring an unusual, double-edged stance.

I decided to conduct some ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’ research into this, which began when snow covered the ground.  I approached 345 English councils, requesting annual totals for compromise agreements and FOI / DP related gagging clauses – drawn up in circumstances of dispute, grievance or whistle-blowing.  I discovered a rising trend with time, and to date, have unearthed 4,410 agreements, equating to an average of 15 per council over the last 6 years.  As for the clauses, unlike the January 2011 snow, they were extremely thin on the ground.  Where they do exist, they’re a ‘fail-safe’, used to supplement the one in general use – which follows a more established path: to deter signatories from discussing their workplace woes at career end and beyond.  There is always a threat of “clawback” – whereby an employee breach would involve the employer suing for the return of the full amount received in settlement.  In a victory for one-sidedness however, the penalty for a post agreement employer breach remains elusive, possibly mythical.  The only parties generally permitted to know about the existence and wording of such agreements are the employee’s direct family, professional advisers, and the tax people.

There is at least one agreement however, where the gagging clause in use pushes the bounds of confidentiality to a startling extreme.

Back in November 2008, a social worker (let’s call him Mr X) blew the whistle on his council employer.  After being let down by the Audit Commission and CSCI (later the Care Quality Commission), he turned to the press.  His gagging clause was specific and cost the council £500.  They also handed over £44,500, and sought to prevent him from discussing with ANY third party, an entire range of whistle-blowing concerns.  The detail of these was shameful: financial abuse of disabled tenants – amounting to the unlawful deduction of £700,000+ from many of the council’s most vulnerable residents over several years; an ongoing refusal by senior managers to acknowledge that the practice was unlawful and should cease, and a campaign of bullying and abuse of power.   The council’s behaviour towards its own tenants (four of whom have since died) has since been ruled as disability discrimination by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.  An apology was also issued to Mr X for proven management bullying and abuse of power.  Worryingly, if he had ‘stayed bullied’, and not breached the gagging clause by going to the press, the public would never have known of the scandal; of the council’s failure to act; its lurch to secrecy; the public money squandered, and the protection and concealment that was gained by drafting a compromise agreement.  The public interest would have been so neatly circumvented.

Upon signing such an agreement, from the employee’s perspective, an onerous double layer of security descends.  They are told on the one hand, that they cannot take a specified action, and on the other, that they cannot reveal the existence of the agreement itself.  The effect: a hidden pact, funded by public money, draws a veil over the placing of a dubious gag, and potentially, details of the most deplorable behaviour.

It’s neat, it’s effective, and it’s going on everywhere.  But how many information governance or legal professionals in the public sector would regard such an approach reasonable, lawful, enforceable, or morally justified?  Is the levelling of the FOI / DP gag ultra vires?  Does the tactic sit well with publicly-funded bodies, amid their ongoing claims to openness and transparency?  Or is it an impulsive lunge towards institutionalised reputation management, done to conceal at all costs, and to make damn sure the employer emerges unscathed, with whatever’s hidden never seeing the light of day?  In the Mr X case, was there a collective sigh of relief as the ink dried on the paper, and as foul conduct and a multitude of publicly-funded sins were swept under the carpet?  A recent review undertaken by an independent consultant found the council involving itself in learning disabled abuse over a protracted period.

Central Government, the unions and most regulators regard compromise agreements and gagging clauses as justified, through the need to cut legal costs, avoid tribunals, and conserve public funds.  The process is often dressed up as ‘supporting employees’.  With free legal advice on tap, how can employees claim ignorance of the process and its consequences?  They can walk away with a financial settlement for their troubles, and ‘grasp the opportunity for a fresh start’.

But this can be at extreme personal cost.  Mr X had his life turned upside down, and was hospitalised due to the stress he had been placed under.  Not surprisingly, he holds a different view, “Compromise agreements should only be used in business sensitive cases.  They should never be used to suppress issues in the public interest.  They are consistently used as a reputation management tool and are an abuse of power.”  In Mr X’s case, the gag had a thoroughly chilling effect.  Such was the employer’s fear of exposure, the perfectly reasonable step of seeking legal advice would have breached Mr X’s agreement.

In June 2011, under threat of litigation led by Hugh Tomlinson QC, the council which had ‘opted out’ of its FOI / DP obligations backed down and withdrew the gagging clause, restoring the ex-employee’s rights.  The monitoring officer responsible for the ‘ban’ has moved, perhaps where he belongs, into the private sector.

Mr X’s ongoing battle with his council adversary and former employer has now moved to the ‘accountability’ stage.  A long awaited 250 page report, drawn up by the independent consultant and costing £1,000 per page has now been placed in the public arena, albeit anonymised to protect those potentially culpable.  However, the council, displaying a rather loose grasp on the true meaning of ‘accountability’, was not prepared to discipline two senior Social Services officers found to be at fault.  Instead, despite acknowledging years of learning disabled abuse, the council pre-empted the report’s release by allowing the two to depart their posts quietly and by ‘mutual consent’, probably under compromise agreements, probably “paid off” and potentially in receipt of positive or neutral work references to furnish to any future employers.

These two officers received an equal share of £220,000 of public money.  Many people believe this was paid to buy their silence, keep them ‘on side’ and prevent them from dropping very senior personnel into hot water.

Paul Cardin

http://www.easyvirtualassistance.wordpress.com

Twitter: @eVirtual_Assist

1st October 2012

Link: Damning Internal Auditors’ report on Metropolitan Borough of Wirral’s approach to “Compromise Agreements”.

Within this post, there are some striking similarities to the content of the above article.

Site Meter

FoI / DP Gagging clauses – Did the Information Commissioner use them in its own compromise agreements?

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

Full marks to this FoI requester – for using WhatDoTheyKnow to take a thorny issue to the heart of the ICO – the UK regulating body, overseeing information and data.  On the surface, this request may seem cheeky / provocative / frivolous, but far from it…. the Information Commissioner, whilst stating last year that public bodies would most likely be in breach of the Act, should an FoI request be made by a ‘banned’ ex-employee, has recently admitted that it has no power to prevent public bodies opting out of their obligations under the FOI Act by including gagging clauses in compromise agreements.  So questions like this should be expected.  But just LOOK at the standard of response it received.

The request goes as follows:

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

How many compromise agreements, or similar settlements for people
who have resigned from the Information Commissioner’s Office have
been signed in each of the past ten years, including this one?

For any agreement signed, did it include any provision for the
individual to agree not to make FOI and DP requests, or to
correspond with the ICO?

How many allegations of unfair dismissal have been made against the
ICO in each of the past ten years, including this one?

Yours faithfully,

The ICO response came within the required 20 working days (you’d hope so given this is the regulator) – but despite this, it can only be described as “sloppy”.  They’re at pains to say there’s a whole lot of  ‘considering’ going on, but there’s very little of the much-trumpeted and much-hoped-for ‘openness and transparency’:

The number of compromise agreements and allegations of unfair dismissal
broken down in to each year is exempt under Section 40(2) by virtue of
Section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  This section
of the Act allows a public authority, such as the ICO, to withhold
information in response to a request under FOIA when the information being
requested is the personal data relating to someone other than the
requester and where its disclosure would contravene one of the Data
Protection Principles.

We consider that because of the small number of compromise agreements and
allegations of unfair dismissal in each year it would be possible to
identify the person or ex employee of the Commissioner.  Therefore, this
would be the personal data of each of those individuals.  In these
circumstances there would be no reasonable expectation of those
individuals that these details would be made public and released in
response to such a request, and in some cases a further degree of
confidentiality was provided.  To release this personal data broken down
into years would therefore be unfair and in breach of the first data
protection principle which states that – Personal data shall be processed
fairly and lawfully…

I can however confirm that in the last ten years there have been nine
compromise agreements or other settlements and two allegations of unfair
dismissal.

We also consider that the details of, or provisions within, those
individual agreements is exempt information under Section 40(2) of FOIA
for the reasons detailed above.

I hope this information is of some interest and assistance.

OK, the unwillingness to risk identifying recipients of compromise agreements due to the small numbers involved sounds reasonable on the surface, but eagle-eyed readers will have spotted pretty much immediately that the ICO, the regulator of all things data and information has failed to respond to the WHOLE question.

Here was a pretty unambiguous request for details of FOI / DP related “provisions” (gagging clauses aimed at preventing the recipients of compromise agreements exercising their statutory information and data querying rights) which the requester made reference to in his initial query – “did it include any provision for the individual to agree not to make FOI and DP requests, or to correspond with the ICO?”

As is his right, the requester then came back with a request for an internal review to be undertaken by a senior officer:

I would like to request an internal review on the following basis.

I do not believe that it would be possible for an individual to be
identified purely because you confirmed that, for example, “there
was one compromise agreement signed in 2006″.

I would also like a review on the issue of whether any agreement
include provision not to make FOI / DP requests. Given that the
Information Commissioner is the FOI / DP regulator, I believe that
anyone signing such an agreement would have a reasonable
expectation that this information might be made public. However, I
also do not believe that it is possible to maintain your position
that the information is not disclosable in the format you used to
respond. In confirming that there have been nine agreements or
other settlements, I do not believe that there would be any
possibility of identification if you confirmed that any or all of
the agreements included a provision not to make FOI or DP requests.

Yours faithfully,

Spot on.  The justification given for not releasing the numbers of compromise agreements was NOT explained very well and the reasons given were sparse.  It’s not surprising that the requester wasn’t happy.  As for the FoI / DP gagging clauses, I’m more inclined to believe the regulator either missed the point or deliberately didn’t address it, rather than failed to mention it because it could have identified individuals.

Eventually, on 23rd November, what can only be described as a ‘partial climb-down’ came through the ether:

Dear …….

Case Reference Number IRQ 0421243

I refer to your email of 3 November 2011 asking for an internal review of our decision on your FOI request to us of 19 October 2011.  I have now had an opportunity to discuss the basis for our original decision with my colleague Charlotte Powell and to carry out the review you have requested.  We now believe that there is some additional information that we can provide you with.

So far as compromise agreements or similar settlements are concerned the main difficulty for us is in identifying those years in which there were no such agreements.  This would disclose personal data about all those who left the ICO’s employment during the year in question, by telling you, with absolute certainty, that more of them benefited from a compromise agreement or similar settlement.  However, provided that we do not distinguish between those years in which there were no agreements and those years in which there was only one, we consider that we can disclose the information requested without breaching the Data Protection Act. 

We are therefore able to disclose the following to you:

YEAR No. OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS OR OTHER SETTLEMENTS UNFAIR DISMISSAL CLAIMS
2011/1210/1109/1008/0907/0806/07

05/06

04/05

03/04

02/03

230/10/10/10/1

0/1

2

0/1

0/1

0/10/10/10/10/10/1

0/1

0/1

0/1

0/1

 So far as the question of whether any agreement includes provision not to make DP/FOI requests is concerned a similar consideration applies.  If we were to openly disclose that none of the agreements contains such a provision this would tell anyone who might already know that a particular person has benefited from such an agreement something about that agreement and hence disclose personal data about that person.  However, on reflection we do not consider that, in this case, there could be any meaningful breach of the Data Protection Act given that it is so improbable that we, as the information rights regulator, would ask someone to agree to a term signing away the very rights we are seeking to uphold. Indeed it is a little disappointing that you feel the need to even ask this question of us.  However I can confirm that no such term has been, nor would be, included in any compromise agreement or other settlement between a former member of staff and the ICO.

I hope this provides you with the information you are seeking.  If you remain dissatisfied you have the right, under section 50 of FOIA to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether your request has been dealt with in accordance with the Act.  If you make such an application it will be considered independently of your original request and this review.

Yours sincerely

David Smith 

Deputy Commissioner

When you consider this response came from the Deputy Commissioner himself, it’s pretty startling to read “……. Indeed it is a little disappointing that you feel the need to even ask this question of us.

It’s worrying to think that the Deputy Commissioner is on the defensive, acting all affronted and has to be dragged protesting over the need to address probing questions, especially given that his  own organisation now appears to have been sidelined by clever lawyers in this area.  A number of  ‘publicly accountable’ organisations are pouring council tax or central government money hand over fist into insidious devices aimed at blocking the free flow of information; or actively circumventing their own stated obligations as public data controllers under both Acts.

But why would they seek to do this?  Because when they’re caught red-handed breaking the law or up to their collective necks in deceit, or immoral behaviour, the last thing they want is somebody they regard as a ‘troublemaker’ using the statutory provisions within the FoI or DP Acts to expose their deplorable conduct.

So, riding in on a white charger come compromise agreements (see Glenn Mulcaire and #Leveson) – a legal option available to them, backed by the Law Society, the Local Government Association, by unions and by central government.  These agreements (and the gagging clauses within them) are a cornerstone of reputation management, which sweeps (and conceals) all before it.


Site Meter

Gagging Clauses – Comment added to Opendata Consultation – October 2011

This site is moving to a new web address.  If you’re a follower, please browse to the new site and register again to continue to receive updates or email notifications.  The old ones will cease to work in around a month’s time, when the old blog is taken down.

All the old content has been moved across and nothing else has changed.

Thanks for your time, and for following and I’ll see you there soon:

www.wirralinittogether.wordpress.com

The following comment has been added to the Government’s Opendata Consultation (recently ended):

“Two UK Councils have implemented a means of preventing ex-employees from exercising their future FoI / DP querying rights.  These were drawn up within compromise agreements following internal disputes.  These are Cheshire West and Chester Council, who have stated they will use the ‘ban’ again and Brent Borough Council.

The Information Commissioner has confirmed that the practice does not breach either Act.  No breach is committed because the recipient of the ‘ban’ will not make a request for fear of being pursued through the courts by the ex-employer.

The recipient of the ‘ban’ would need to make a request, have it turned down by the data controller quoting the ‘ban’ as the justification for withholding information.  The ICO would then step in, because its own opinion is that the only means of withholding data is through an exemption written into the Act.

However, there is a loophole waiting to be exploited here. Councils who have a lot of ‘dirty washing’ they don’t want to hang out in public, could use this tactic as an ongoing means of concealment.  There is even scope for them to feel emboldened, and to continue behaving immorally or unlawfully, because they have an effective means of covering up.

I feel the Act needs to be changed or a judicial review should be sought to prevent this happening.

At the moment, we have a situation where councils are free to claim a commitment to openness and transparency, whilst breaching their own internal data and information policies and breaching the spirit of the FOIA and the DPA.”

Thu, 27/10/2011 – 10:52 — Paul Cardin

More here: tinyurl.com/65ebm5o (Page 6)

And here: http://tinyurl.com/6gaf2ts

And here: http://tinyurl.com/3sufvqo

Link: http://data.gov.uk/opendataconsultation/questions


Site Meter