Fine words – but where Wirral Council’s concerned, they’re always a hostage to fortune

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

Caucasian businessman giving thumbs down uid 1172602

Here’s a link to a fine Wirral Council document.  ‘Fine’ because its stuffed with nice sounding, positive words – strong, decisive ones.  Only later – much later – to be revealed as shitty, deceitful and hollow.  The abusive council which promised so much… but delivered nothing.

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=18972

It’s the process of bogus, pained self-flagellation / feigned victimhood that workplace bullies lurch towards when caught in the act.  Like rabbits in the headlights, they’re briefly stunned; but not missing a beat, they quickly recover.  Soon they’re up and running again, promising not to be so awful to their staff again in the future.  Their staff – the people they’ve described so many times in the past as ‘our most important asset’.

“Never again”, they will say. “This time….  it’s for real.”

But because they have all the power, they’ll quickly remind you that they’re the ones who are best placed to sort it all out.  They’ll start by making an earnest pledge to the watching public.

“We will stop at nothing in pursuit of the truth.  Lessons will be learned.  We will make the people responsible for this atrocious conduct (i.e. we the councillors / senior officers and our on-message sycophants) fully accountable…. and we are determined to succeed.  We are committed to fixing this organisation, and  moving forward.  We will start by calling for an immediate and robust review of all the relevant policies and procedures.”

This will be their call to ‘action’.  They may even call the whole thing an “Action Plan“.  Because that sounds positive.  Unless like Wirral, you happen to be on Action Plan number 94 for whatever year, with the list of self-generating scandals and fiascos growing ever longer:

  • (to be continued…..)

The experienced council watchers among you are now seeing phrases trotted out such as ‘we need to draw a line under it’ or ‘this council has to move forward’ or ‘that’s historical and happened such a long time ago’.

Here’s a reminder of Councillor Denise Roberts’ amendment from way back when – otherwise known as ‘the ‘series of unfortunate events defence’ – stuffed to the gills with the corrosive language of avoidance – which despite or because of LGA involvement, still epitomises to this day Wirral Council’s inability to take onboard and recognise its own desperate failings.

As the desire to cover up gathers fresh momentum, a public inquiry and / or special measures are desperately needed – to stem the haemorrhaging of £millions more of our money into the burgeoning black hole of Wirral councillors’ and senior officers’ creation.

Now…!

Site Meter

UPDATE – Wirral Councillors NOW REGISTERED with the ICO – but are YOU paying…?

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 holding wallet BE uid 1342656

Back in early October, following the publishing of my email address without permission on a group of Wirral Councillors’ website, I decided to make enquiries and find out how many of our then 66 councillors were registered as ‘data controllers’ with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

This is a legal, statutory requirement where councillors are acting on behalf of constituents and storing their personal information electronically on home computers.

Within the ICO website, there’s a handy name checker where you can type in a name, address, etc. and discover whether an individual or company is actually registered.  I did this for the Wirral 66 and discovered that….  none of them were registered.

So I gave them all fair warning, advising them that they may have been in breach statutory law.  It was possible that not all of them needed to register, but highly unlikely that all 66 didn’t.

Since then, two have sadly died, however I waited a further month, but of the remaining 64, only 2 have registered.

So I’ve now sent a second email, advising them that as a member of the public, not wanting to see constituents’ personal data being manipulated illegally, I see it as my duty to inform the ICO, who will hopefully be taking steps to put the situation right.

Here are both emails:

Email One

From: Paul C
Sent: 10 October 2012 21:38
To: ‘ronabbey@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘chrisblakeley@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘eddieboult@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘alanbrighouse@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘wendyclements@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘tonycox@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘jimcrabtree@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘phildavies@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘billdavies@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘darrendodd@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘pauldoughty@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘davidelderton@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘gerryellis@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘stevefoulkes@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘leahfraser@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘philgilchrist@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘patriciaglasman@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘jeffgreen@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘robertgregson@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘pathackett@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘johnhale@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘tomharney@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘paulhayes@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘sylviahodrien@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘andrewhodson@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘mikehornby@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘peterjohnson@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘markjohnston@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘adrianjones@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘chrisjones@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘peterkearney@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘stuartkelly@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘briankenny@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘anitaleech@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘annemcardle@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘donmccubbin@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘annmclachlan@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘moiramclaughlin@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘chrismeaden@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘davemitchell@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘berniemooney@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘christinamuspratt@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘steveniblock@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘tonynorbury@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘cherrypovall@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘deniserealey@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘lesleyrennie@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘deniseroberts@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘lesrowlands@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘johnsalter@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘harrysmith@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘tonysmith@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘waltersmith@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘jeanstapleton@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘michaelsullivan@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘adamsykes@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘joewalsh@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘geoffreywatt@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘stuartwhittingham@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘irenewilliams@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘jerrywilliams@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘patwilliams@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘stevewilliams@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘janettewilliamson@wirral.gov.uk’
Subject: Registering with the Information Commissioner’s Office as a data controller

Dear Councillor(s),

After checking, I note with some concern that none of Wirral’s 66 councillors appear to be registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office as Data Controllers.  This seems unusual given that a number of you are likely to have personal details e.g. residents’ names and addresses / email addresses stored on your computers at home, and are likely to have represented these residents either individually or collectively in some way, shape or form.

Here is a helpful message from Jane Corrin, the Council’s Information Manager, explaining some of the background to this issue:

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your email below.

Advice from the Office of the Information Commissioner for Local Councils is that each individual councillor needs to review and consider if they need to notify with the ICO; depending how they process Personal Data.  This advice is detailed at the link below, which I trust you find useful.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/Search.aspx?collection=ico&keywords=councillors

A short summary is also below, which explains how some processing will be covered by the Council’s Notification and Councillors do not need to register; although circumstances may arise when Councillors must notify individually, at a cost of £35 a year.

“In determining whether they need to notify, councillors need to consider the role in which they are processing personal information. If doing so as a member of the council or as a representative of a major political party, councillors will not normally be required to notify with the ICO. However, when carrying out their role as a representative of the residents in a ward or an independent councillor who is not affiliated to any political party a councillor may need to notify.”

Kind Regards

Jane Corrin

Information Manager

Wirral council

Simon Entwistle, Director of Operations at the ICO, said:

“Most councillors have regular access to the personal information of the residents they represent. Like all organisations who handle people’s information, it is of paramount importance that they take their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act seriously.

“We will be writing to councillors with advice on whether they need to notify with the ICO. Those who fail to notify with us when required may face enforcement action.”

Please take time to follow this link, which will enable you to very quickly and honestly assess your own position in order to determine whether any of your own activities should be registered.  This may help to protect the data security and privacy of any residents whose information you may be storing:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/notify/self/question1.html

Please note that any qualifying failure to notify with the ICO may result in a £5,000 fine, or an unlimited Crown Court fine.

More helpful information here:  http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/pressreleases/2011/councillors_dp_compliance_news_release_20110125.ashx

As a Wirral resident, given the Council’s less than adequate performance on Freedom of Information in particular, I am concerned that a degree of sloppiness may have been allowed to creep into the important areas of data protection and security.  For this reason, I will be checking with the ICO in a month’s time to see what progress has been made,

Kind regards,

Paul Cardin

Email Two

12th November 2012

Dear Councillors,

I’ve re-checked with the Information Commissioner’s Office and it appears that despite the email I sent to you all a month ago (below), only one of you appears to have decided to ‘go legal’ and register with the ICO as a data controller.

Individually, there may be perfectly valid reasons for this, but 63 councillors lawfully not registered seems highly unlikely, given that many of you deal on a day to day basis with constituents’ personal data and information – and may have that personal data and information stored on your home computers for the purposes of e.g. carrying out casework on behalf of individual constituents.

I’ll now take this on to the next stage and report the situation to the ICO, who I’m sure will be grateful to receive the heads up.  Given the background on Wirral of years of disabled abuse; disability discrimination; impropriety; hideously misconceived legal crusades; failed standards complaints; blaming the public for the Council’s own inadequacies in data and information management; suspensions, followed by vindication; pay offs; gags; nobody made accountable, and layer upon layer of cover up, they may not be surprised.  But there’s one thing for sure….

I’ll be surprised if the ICO agree with Councillor Crabtree’s sentiments, and declare it…… quote… ‘a load of tosh’,

Best regards,

Paul Cardin

ps. Please accept my apology here and now if you have registered and the ICO has not yet updated its records to reflect this

I attached a read receipt to these messages and a number of councillors sent the receipt back “not read” i.e. the message itself was deleted without being read.

Since this email was sent, one further councillor has registered with the ICO.

I’ve now sent an email to the ICO, with a list of the 62 councillors not registered, asking them to advise:

18th November 2012

Dear ICO Notification Department,

I have sent the attached emails to all Wirral Councillors regarding non-notification as data controllers with the ICO.  Wirral currently has an LGA “Improvement Board” in place following a number of serious scandals which were played out over a number of years.  The council has also had a loose grasp on the importance of Freedom of Information and has been subject to the ICO’s ‘special measures’ following poor performance.  My own experiences are not good and I have placed requests which have taken over a year to address.

When I sent the 1st email in early October, there were 66 councillors in total, none of whom were registered.  Since then, two councillors have sadly died.  I sent the 2nd email a month later after allowing them ample time to take action (if they felt it was necessary), however only two are now registered, making 2 from a total of 64.  It seems likely to me that many of them will be active in representing constituents, will possess personal details in electronic format, will potentially be in breach of the Data Protection Act and are required to register.

I have checked against your own website records and I am therefore notifying you of the failure of the following 62 councillors to comply and to register:

  1. Ron Abbey
  2. Chris Blakeley
  3. Eddie Boult
  4. Alan Brighouse
  5. Wendy Clements
  6. Tony Cox
  7. Jim Crabtree
  8. George Davies
  9. Phil Davies
  10. Bill Davies
  11. Darren Dodd
  12. Paul Doughty
  13. David Elderton
  14. Gerry Ellis
  15. Steve Foulkes
  16. Leah Fraser
  17. Phil Gilchrist
  18. Patricia Glasman
  19. Jeff Green
  20. Robert Gregson
  21. Pat Hackett
  22. John Hale
  23. Tom Harney
  24. Paul Hayes
  25. Sylvia Hodrien
  26. Andrew Hodson
  27. Mike Hornby
  28. Mark Johnston
  29. Adrian Jones
  30. Chris Jones
  31. Stuart Kelly
  32. Brian Kenny
  33. Anita Leech
  34. Don McCubbin
  35. Ann McLachlan
  36. Moira McLaughlin
  37. Chris Meaden
  38. Dave Mitchell
  39. Bernie Mooney
  40. Simon Mountney
  41. Christina Muspratt
  42. Steve Niblock
  43. Tony Norbury
  44. Cherry Povall
  45. Denise Realey
  46. Lesley Rennie
  47. Denise Roberts
  48. Les Rowlands
  49. John Salter
  50. Harry Smith
  51. Tony Smith
  52. Walter Smith
  53. Jean Stapleton
  54. Adam Sykes
  55. Joe Walsh
  56. Geoffrey Watt
  57. Stuart Whittingham
  58. Irene Williams
  59. Jerry Williams
  60. Pat Williams
  61. Steve Williams
  62. Janette Williamson

The two now registered councillors are Peter Kearney and Michael Sullivan.  Party leaders are Phil Davies, Jeff Green and Tom Harney.

I would appreciate it very much if you could acknowledge receipt of this email, advise me what’s now required and advise me what action you will be taking,

Best regards,

Paul Cardin

21st November 2012

No response in from the ICO yet.

26th November 2012

Still no response in from the ICO.

28th November 2012

Just spoke to a very helpful person from the ICO’s ‘Non-Compliance’ Department, who assured me that Wirral Council’s leader, Phil Davies, has been in touch and that hopefully soon, a cheque will be on the way to pay for all non-compliant councillors.

I should add that this cheque will cover 62 people, and they will not be paying out of their own pockets.  This will include and benefit the elected member (identity available on request) who told me in an email it was “A load of tosh“.

The Wirral public will be digging deep (£2,170) to cover not just themselves, but any errant councillor playing fast and loose with their sensitive personal information.

See here and here.

Watch here for further information and correspondence.

UPDATE   21st January 2013

Email in from a lead case officer at the ICO:

—– Forwarded message —–
From: [Lead Case Officer’s email address redacted]
To: Paul Cardin
Subject: Non-registration of 62 Wirral Councillors – FAO [Lead Case Officer’s name redacted]
Date: Mon, Jan 21, 2013 16:28

Dear Mr Cardin,

My apologies for not being able to reply sooner, I have been on leave and today is my first day back in the Office since Christmas.

I have been in communications with the Legal Services team at Wirral Council since you raised the matter of their councillors being un-registered.

On the 21 December 2012 we received 62 application forms for the individual councillors together with 1 cheque from the council to cover the 62 lots of £35 registration fees. I have no idea if the council will be re-imbursed by the individual councillors or whether the council is in fact paying for the registrations of their councillors.

If I remember rightly, a set of application forms was posted out in the name of Phil Davies and the legal services team then used that application form for the template for the rest of the councillors, obviously changing the data controller name each time to that of the respective councillor and a different registration number was created by us for each councillor when the forms were processed.

The forms were processed by our Notification Department on the 24th December 2012 and all of the councillors are registered at the same address (the Wirral Borough Council Offices address) so if you are wanting to do a search of the councillors registrations if you go onto our website and onto the public register page and put in the post code CH44 8ED then you should be able to see the list of the councillors that are now registered.

There was a covering letter with the application forms as I think they are waiting on 1 more application form but I think that is because of an upcoming election for a vacant seat? Perhaps I have got that wrong but I do recall there being a valid reason for the omission.

Hope this helps, like I say I am only just getting back into the swing of things and some of my recollections are a bit vague!!

Kind regards,

[Lead Case Officer’s name redacted]

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

T. [redacted] F. [redacted] www.ico.gov.uk

From: Paul C
Sent: 18 January 2013 09:26
To: Notification@
Subject: FW: Non-registration of 62 Wirral Councillors – FAO [Lead Case Officer’s name redacted]

FAO [Lead Case Officer’s name redacted]

Dear [Lead Case Officer’s name redacted]

Please forward copies of the information we discussed last year: documentation to show that Councillor Phil Davies placed a ‘bulk order’ for 60+ Wirral Councillors’ data controller registrations.

I realise that you are currently on leave, but would be grateful if you could act on this request shortly after returning.

I hope you had a good break,

Regards,

Paul Cardin

The officer hasn’t forwarded what I asked for yet – copies of documentation in the form of correspondence / a ‘bulk order’ for 60+ councillors, but I’ll be chasing him up on it.  Hopefully I won’t have to place an FoI request…. and wait.

____________________________________________________________________

Site Meter

Compromise Agreements ~ Their Impact on Equal Pay Claims

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

A landmark judgment was announced recently by the UK Supreme Court, allowing equal pay claims to be brought in the Civil Courts, where in the past the only route was through the Employment Tribunal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/victory-birmingham-equal-pay?newsfeed=true

A key factor in this decision is the differing timescales or eligibility periods between the Employment Tribunal and the Civil Court processes.  In the past, Equal Pay claims would time out after six months of leaving employment – a constraining factor which had always played into the hands of the employer.  However, the civil courts allow a greater and far more reasonable 6 year period of opportunity – vital when preparing more complex cases, or in allowing employees who may be unaware that they have suffered through unequal pay, more time to discover the facts and take up legal support in order to prepare a case.

The above link refers to a number of determined female employees, 170 in total, who had worked for Birmingham City Council, and who brought their cases to the High Court against a background of double-dip recession, austerity and central government cuts, in a climate where many large council employers were busy cheaply shedding posts across a number of years.

Many councils, including Cheshire West and Chester for example, have been encouraging employees either made jobless, taking voluntary redundancy or early severance / retirement, to consider taking small financial settlements and sign compromise agreements.  These are legal documents which take the form of full and final settlements.  They’re written up ostensibly in order to give a “clean break”, but motivated by self-interest as they encourage the ex-employee to enter a binding contract to waive any legal claims against their former employer in the future.

Compromise agreements are powerful and pretty much all-encompassing instruments.  The only legal avenue which cannot be closed off in this manner is that of personal injury claims.  Each compromise agreement will usually cost the employer around £250 to draw up and process.  This cost will rise if the employer seeks to include gagging clauses, preventing the employee from talking about details of the contract or even the contract itself.  To make the document lawful and above board, employees, as signatories to the document, will need to access and receive legal advice as part of their exit procedure.

In January 2011, exercising my statutory Freedom of Information rights, I conducted research encompassing 345 English councils.

http://www.easyvirtualassistance.co.uk/page12.html

I asked these councils to provide details for the number of compromise agreements they had processed during the previous 6 years.  This was restricted to those drawn up in circumstances of dispute, such as grievances, investigations and whistleblowing cases.  If I’d requested ALL agreements, including those drawn up in redundancy situations or equal pay claims, it’s highly unlikely the councils would have been in a position, due to the sheer numbers involved, to provide the information without going above the £450 costs limit.  This is a provision within the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which takes into account an organisation’s resources / workload and is given to data controllers as one of the exemptions under which information which is held does not have to be released.

Some councils responded instantly, generally the smaller, well-run ones.  Many more took a few weeks to reply, but did respond within the 20 working days that the Act allows them.

To receive all the answers took many months, but eventually, following numerous internal reviews and 55 appeals to the Information Commissioner’s Office, I finally had answers from all 345 councils.  The last one to respond was my own council, the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral – an organisation which has been mired in scandal upon scandal, a very small portion of which is covered elsewhere on this blog.

In total, there were approaching 300 English councils who responded and provided figures, mostly for a period of 6 years, between 2005 and 2011.  Around 50 of them gave varying reasons for not responding, and engaged various exemptions within the Act, usually the costs exemption, claiming that the act of going through their records and providing the data would cost more than £450.  Others claimed that releasing the data would be an infringement on the ex-employees’ personal privacy.  I appealed many times with the Information Commissioner, but ultimately, only 22 appeals were successful in overturning the councils’ decision not to comply.

The total number of compromise agreements drawn up in circumstances of dispute, grievance, investigation and whistleblowing was 4,410 or an average of 15 per council.  Applying estimated costs of £350 per agreement (as such agreements are very likely to contain one or more gagging clauses), this works out to a total of £1,543,500.

The use of such agreements followed a trend which has been rising exponentially over the last 6 years.  One could reasonably speculate that council employers will be tempted to make even greater use of these agreements in equal pay and redundancy situations.

The graph above indicates steady growth in the use of compromise agreements in dispute circumstances over the last 6 years. 2010 figures were still working through, and with 55 requests refused, the adjusted figure may eventually fall into line with the rising historical trend.

Should compromise agreements as full and final settlements still be regarded as valid following the recent Supreme Court judgment – and there’s no reason to conclude that they won’t be – what a wise and profitable move it will have been for the employers who issued them.

However, what’s good for employers is not usually good for their staff…. or indeed their former staff.

Site Meter

UPDATED – Analysis of 14 Freedom of Information requests to Wirral Council – verdict is not good…

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

I don’t profess to be an expert where Data & Information Governance are concerned.  I have a layman’s self-taught appreciation of FOIA and DPA.  Experts will find fault in the following analysis, but I hope I’ve covered the basics adequately.  As time goes on, I will update the times and insert more context and background information on each request.

14 x FoI requests to Wirral Council – 2011 to present day

The majority of these requests (10) contain multiple breaches of Statutory Law.

1.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_between_party_leaders_an#outgoing-220406

Summary: Requesting information around important initial meeting held between Anna Klonowski and all Wirral party leaders.

Date of request:     12th Oct 2011

Age of request in working days:      315 and counting

Response within 20 working days: reply on Day 20

Internal review requested:      9th Nov 2011

Working days for internal review to report:     281 and counting (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Note: Amid a background of proven malpractice, bullying and the targetting and disposal of a whistleblower, along with serious failures in governance, the council press office notified the Liverpool Echo to advise them of this meeting.  In response to this FoI request, Wirral described it as “an informal gathering that didn’t require minuting”.  Whereas the Liverpool Echo headline had screamed: “Wirral Council Leadership Hangs in the Balance”.  After 315 woring days, I still await a measured and reasoned response.

I still await an internal review, originally requested over a YEAR ago.

2.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dass_recent_departure_of_two_sen#comment-30487

Summary: Requesting information around two ex DASS senior officers, gagged, paid off, allowed to leave, but never disciplined.

Date of request:     11th Jan 2012

Age of request in working days:      233

Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 21 (breach of Statutory Law)

Appealed with ICO:      13th Apr 2012 

Working days for council to respond:     169 (breach of Statutory Law)

Decision notice:     Published

Request completed: FS50438500 – Click to read ICO Decision Notice

Rosemary Lyon requested a 14 day extension.  Surjit Tour requested a 7 day extension.  Both granted.  Both deadlines missed.

I’m currently waiting for the ICO to publish the Decision Notice on this.  It’s been presented to me by the ICO as a “complex” decision.  I regarded it as a pretty straightforward case of failure to discipline officers and the enablement of future abuse.

UPDATE   December 2012

The decision notice is now in.  The ICO appear to regard ‘personal privacy’ as more worthy of its attention than a dangerous threat to the wellbeing of learning disabled people.  But the least said about that the better.  The decision is being appealed to the First Tier (Information Rights) Tribunal.

3.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/senior_officers_requirement_to_d#comment-29981

Summary: Requesting information on Senior Officers’ register of declared interests.

Date of request:     20th Jun 2011

Age of request in working days:      344

Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 27 (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      13th Aug 2011

Working days for council to respond:   Internal Review  not carried out (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Appealed with ICO:     15th July 2012

Decision notice:     Published

ICO reference No.     FS50416628 (Click to read ICO Decision Notice)

Contempt of Court proceedings are potentially about to be issued, depending upon the response I receive to the following email, sent this evening:

From: Paul C
Sent: 04 September 2012 21:15
To: ‘casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: Freedom of information request re: Wirral Council Register of Senior Officers’ interests FS50416628

FAO [Senior Case Officer’s name redacted]

Dear [Senior Case Officer’s name redacted],

Further to the Decision Notice you issued to Wirral Council dated 13th August 2012, 35 calendar days have now expired, but I have not received any contact from Wirral Council specifying to me whether it holds further information which falls within the scope of my request as required by Section 1(1)(a) of the Act.

Neither have I received any further information contingent upon the Council’s consideration of any further information it holds for disclosure to me, the complainant, as required by section 1(1)(b) of the Act.

Neither have I had any indication that the Council has considered any information which it does hold for disclosure bearing in mind the First Tier Tribunal’s decision in the case of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137).

I therefore request that you take this case to the next stage and also update me with the details of any action that you are taking,

Best regards,

Paul Cardin

11th October 2012

After 16 months, Wirral Council has finally and reluctantly provided some information on the declared interests of 26 x Senior Officers.  Given that Wirral are making frequent claims to a newly emerging climate of transparency and openness, I have no idea why it took them so long.  I haven’t yet checked whether the list is complete and includes all of the council’s officers above the pay level of £58,200  (a stipulation made at the Information Tribunal in the case of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137), but will be doing so in the near future.

Here’s a link to the blog post specifically covering this and holding links to all the information that Wirral Council supplied.

The Council have now provided information, however it was provided piecemeal, over several days, in shoddily presented documents, and has not come up to standard.  I have now asked the ICO to consider issuing an Enforcement Notice.

The ICO, true to form, has backed the Council.  However I’m querying why they’ve allowed the Council to claim a Section 40(2) exemption on an obvious conflict of interest – which patently cannot  represent personal data in any shape or form.

4.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_letter_published_on_webs#outgoing-216044

Summary: Requesting copy of a letter published on Council website “mistakenly” identifying Highways Contract whistleblower.

Date of request:     11th Jul 2012

Age of request in working days:      120 and counting

Answered within 20 working days:      no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      11th Aug 2012

Working days for council to respond:     89 (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Appealed with ICO:     6th October 2012

5.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/helpline_regarding_illegal_delay#outgoing-216036

Summary: Requesting information on results of a helpline set up following exposure of a hidden, illegal 4 week delay on care packages.

Date of request:     8th May 2012

Age of request in working days:      112

Answered within 20 working days:      reply on Day 66 (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      6th July 2012

Working days for council to respond:     112 (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO (currently considering appeal to ICO)

Appealed with ICO:     Reply received from Wirral Council on 10th October 2012

Please see the following blog post for comment and analysis of the information received:

https://easyvirtualassistance.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/wirral-councils-unlawful-implementation-of-a-4-week-delay-on-social-care-packages/

6.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/agreed_departure_of_chief_execut#comment-29785

Summary: Request for information regarding the departure of CEO Jim Wilkie, again shrouded in secrecy, possibly gagged, paid off.

Date of request:     7th Jun 2012

Age of request in working days:      144 and counting

Answered within 20 working days:      no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      6th July 2012

Working days for council to respond:     no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Appealed with ICO:     5th October 2012

7.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/consultant_anna_klonowski_declar#outgoing-210386

Summary: Request for information around Anna Klonowski’s declarations / costs / nature of association with Wirral Council.

Date of request:     12th May 2012

Age of request in working days:      162 and counting

Answered within 20 working days:      no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      11th July 2012

Days taken for council to respond:     no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Appealed with ICO:     6th October 2012

8.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/suspension_of_director_david_gre#incoming-286811

Summary:     Requesting information relating to the procedure of suspending a Director and the potential consequences.

Date of request:     2nd May 2012

Age of request in working days:      170 and counting

Answered within 20 working days:      no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      4th September 2012

Days taken for council to respond:     no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Appealed with ICO:     6th October 2012

9.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/out_of_hours_monitoring_of_stree#incoming-286806

Summary:     Requesting information on street lighting night-time scouting rounds; areas; frequency; responsible contractor, etc.

Date of request:     5th May 2012

Age of request in working days:      36 (completion time)

Answered within 20 working days:      reply on Day 23 (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      N/A

Days taken for council to respond:     N/A

Request completed: YES

Appealed with ICO:     N/A

10.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_copies_of_correspond_2#outgoing-199397

Summary:     Requesting copies of corresondence between Council & DLA Piper UK LLP – law firm assigned work within AKA report

Date of request:     4th Feb 2012

Age of request in working days:      179 and counting

Answered within 20 working days:      no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      6th March 2012

Days taken for council to respond:     no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: NO

Appealed with ICO:     21st April 2012

11.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/stephen_maddox_former_chief_exec#comment-26245

Summary:     Requesting information relating to early departure of former CEO Steve Maddox; payments, correspondence, etc.

Date of request:     3rd January 2011

Age of request in working days:      296 (Completion time)

Answered within 20 working days:      reply on Day 31 (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      26th April 2011

Days taken for council to respond:     no answer (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: YES

Appealed with ICO:     26th July 2011

ICO Reference No.       FS50406724 – Click to read Decision Notice

Ultimately, although this took well over a year, the ICO made the council produce the following report:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/56617/response/256393/attach/html/3/ER.pdf.html

12.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/letters_sent_to_abused_learning#comment-23443

Summary:     Requesting copy of reimbursement letter to abused tenants of three supported living establishments in Moreton, Wirral

Date of request:     29th Oct 2011

Age of request in working days:      18 (completion time)

Answered within 20 working days:      reply on Day 18

Internal review requested:      N/A

Days taken for council to respond:     N/A

Request completed: YES

Appealed with ICO:     N/A

13.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_figures_for_referrals_to_p#incoming-206071

Summary:     Requesting information on how many times the Council had been referred to the Press Complaints Commission.

Date of request:     23rd Aug 2011

Age of request in working days:      7 (completion time)

Answered within 20 working days:      reply on Day 7

Internal review requested:      N/A

Days taken for council to respond:     N/A

Request completed: Yes

Appealed with ICO:     N/A

14.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_annual_figures_for_comprom_18#comment-19204

Summary: Requesting information on how many compromise agreements / gagging clauses issued by the Council in the last 6 years.

Date of request:     1st Jan 2011

Age of request in working days:      216 (completion time)

Answered within 20 working days:      reply on Day 64 (breach of Statutory Law)

Internal review requested:      31st March 2011

Days taken for council to respond:     40 (breach of Statutory Law)

Request completed: YES

Appealed with ICO:     Yes.  The Council eventually sent the information after a total of 216 working days.

Appealed with ICO:     N/A

The following spreadsheet, covering the above 14 FoI requests is provided to assist the reader in comparing the appalling average response times displayed here with those given in this cynical report, issued by Wirral Council dated 6th September 2012.

The average waiting time on these requests is 26 weeks / six months / half a year.  It seems the awkward and potentially “sensitive” nature of these requests has had an impact.  A subject like “Street Lighting night-time scouting rounds” has been a whole lot easier to deal with than  “pay offs and gags for senior officers, suspected to be involved in learning disabled abuse and disability discrimination”.

Click on the links in Column 1 to view associated press articles.

Subject Date Time Time Completed Links
summary originally Waited Waited
lodged (working (expressed
days) in weeks)
Info around important initial meeting held between Anna Klonowski and all Wirral party leaders. 12/10/2011   248   49   No   1.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_between_party_leaders_an#outgoing-220406
Info around two ex DASS senior officers, gagged, paid off, allowed to leave, but never disciplined. 11/01/2012   183   36   No   2.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dass_recent_departure_of_two_sen#comment-30487
Info on Senior Officers’ register of declared interests. 20/06/2011   330   65   No   3.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/senior_officers_requirement_to_d#comment-29981
Copy of letter published on Council website “mistakenly” identifying Highways Contract whistleblower. 11/07/2012   53   10   No   4.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_letter_published_on_webs#outgoing-216044
Info on results of helpline set up following exposure of hidden illegal 4 week delay on care packages. 08/05/2012   99   19   No   5.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/helpline_regarding_illegal_delay#outgoing-216036
Info regarding the departure of CEO Jim Wilkie. 07/06/2012   77   15   No   6.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/agreed_departure_of_chief_execut#comment-29785
Info around Anna Klonowski’s declarations / costs / nature of association with Wirral Council. 12/05/2012   95   18   No   7.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/consultant_anna_klonowski_declar#outgoing-210386
Info relating to the procedure of suspending a Director and the potential consequences. 02/05/2012   103   20   No   8.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/suspension_of_director_david_gre#incoming-286811
Info on street lighting night-time scouting rounds; areas; frequency; responsible contractor, etc. 05/05/2012   23   4.6   Yes   9.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/out_of_hours_monitoring_of_stree#incoming-286806
Copies of correspondence between Council & DLA Piper UK LLP – law firm assigned AKA report work. 04/02/2012   165   32   No   10.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_copies_of_correspond_2#outgoing-199397
Info relating to early departure of former CEO Steve Maddox; payments, correspondence, etc. 03/01/2011   296   59.2   Yes   11.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/stephen_maddox_former_chief_exec#comment-26245
Copy of reimbursement letter to abused tenants of three supported living establishments. 29/10/2011   18   3.6   Yes   12.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/letters_sent_to_abused_learning#comment-23443
Info on how many times the Council had been referred to the Press Complaints Commission. 23/08/2011   7   1.4   Yes   13.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_figures_for_referrals_to_p#incoming-206071
Info on how many compromise agreements / gagging clauses issued by the Council in the last 6 years. 01/01/2011   216   43.2   Yes   14.     http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_annual_figures_for_comprom_18#comment-19204
           
Average 136 27 5 completed
waiting times days weeks 9 outstanding

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

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

OUT NOW – on ICO website – ‘Personal Privacy’ trumps the wellbeing of Wirral’s learning disabled citizens

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

UPDATE   24th January 2013

My appeal is now registered with HM Courts & Tribunals Service under case number EA/2012/0264

UPDATE   23rd December 2012

An appeal has been lodged today with the First Tier Tribunal.  More updates will follow in the New Year

UPDATE   3rd December 2012

Four months on, the ICO Decision Notice which began its painful journey towards me back in August, finally landed on the doormat.  As expected, it was a bit of a kick in the teeth –  for anyone who’s vulnerable, a disabled person, and living on Wirral.  To sum it up in a sentence, it effectively found that the public interest was served through two officers not being held to account, receiving six figure sums in return for their silence, and being allowed to move on.

Just to update everybody, the two officers referred to, rather than being disciplined, were paid off a total of more than £220,000 in public money, and were allowed to leave the council in January 2012, the day before the release of the ‘full’ Anna Klonowski report.  They were both gagged, and seem to have received what looks like a ‘clean bill of health’.

So, when you’re a prime mover at the heart of abuse towards learning disabled people, the consequences of which was their bank accounts being stripped of a total of £700,000+ and you work for Wirral Council, you have very little to fear, knowing you can move on, avoid sanction, and potentially feel free to abuse again, with your pockets stuffed with public cash.
It seems you also have nothing to fear from the Information Commissioner’s Office who, unlike investigator Anna Klonowski, have bizzarely summed up the very calculated and lengthy abuse which saw whistleblower Martin Morton being bullied and driven from his job, as ‘mistakes and errors’.
Is the law itself wrong here?  Or is this decision to place ‘personal privacy’ above the wellbeing of disabled people just incidental to the day to day work of career bureaucrats, who seem to have no inkling into how their decisions affect the lives of our most vulnerable people?
All UK Councils do after all have a statutory duty to protect vulnerable people within their jurisdiction.  What happened to that?  How on earth did those people become the targets of over a decade of abuse – from the very body entrusted with protecting them?  Are we witnessing the deliberate covering up of Misconduct in Public Office?  I will be appealing to the First Tier Tribunal.
The Decision Notice below is a legal document.  Please read on….
2 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - cover page
2 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page12 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page22 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page32 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page42 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page52 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page62 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page72 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page82 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page42 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page92 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page92 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page102 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page112 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page102 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page122 12 12 - noone and fowler - FS50438500 - page13

hands grabbing money uid 1342954

BREAKING ~ 2nd November 2012

Wirral Council have finally confirmed the size of the pay offs to Mike Fowler and Maura Noone, who left the Council under gagging clauses, within compromise agreements in January 2012:

Good Morning,
With regard to your complaint with the ICO, please find below the information the Council can disclose to you; this relates to the 2 payments made by the Council.
There was a total payment made in each case which was severance pay + notice + 3 months pay.
Head of Support Services   Finance Department
109,496.45 which compromised:
74,276.52 (Severance)
16,881.93 (equivalent of 12 weeks notice)
18,338.00 (3 months salary)


Assistant Director, Head of Wellbeing DASS
111, 042.95 which compromosed
75,823.95 (Severance)
16,881 (equivalent of 12 weeks notice)
18,338 (3 months salary)


The Council remains of the opinion that other information requested is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the FOIA as it contains Personal Data.  The council considers that it would be unfair on the individuals concerned to disclose this personal data and therefore would be in breach of the 1st principle of the DPA 1998.
I have copied the ICO into this response. Kind Regards
Jane Corrin
Information Manager
Wirral Council

TOTAL = £220,539.40 

Please read to the end of this post.  A very dangerous situation is developing on Wirral.

The following is an FoI request I placed with Wirral Council back in January 2012:

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

It’s been attracting so many hits lately, if you type into Google the two word phrase “Officers Departure”, it comes out top.

The background to the request is a very controversial and rather sad one.  Wirral Council has now been exposed as an abusive and failing organisation and its current Chief Executive Jim Wilkie (Departed Wirral on 7th June 2012) even had to admit publicly that this was the case – after a whistleblower, former Wirral social worker Martin Morton, blew the whistle on outrageous conduct by senior Department of Adult Social Services staff.  This involved in part, the taking of £500,000 over a period of up to 9 years from the bank accounts of 16 learning disabled tenants of Council Supported Living accommodation in the Moreton area of Wirral.  Reportedly, five of the recipients of this financial abuse have since died.  Martin Morton had been trying for years to have the unlawful process stopped, but to no avail.  He quickly became the target of intense bullying and alleged mobbing, before being forced from his job.  There were also suspicions of a similar unlawful process applied to council tenants in Balls Road, Birkenhead, and beyond – now confirmed as the total “reimbursed” rises to £700,000.  Jim Wilkie’s admission is buried inside the following document.  See clause 7.1:

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=21125

Two independent investigations followed; the first into bullying and abuse of power, carried out by Martin Smith of North West Employers), and the second, far more wide ranging, looking into corporate governance, the way the Council had set up and monitored Social Services’ contracts within its own jurisdiction, and much more, within a broad remit.  It seems that neither of these investigations were documented adequately and that interviews were not tape recorded or minuted.  Due to this apparent sloppiness, which I’m led to believe was hard fought for by the CIPD accredited investigators, convenient “escape hatches” may subsequently appear for the investigators and the investigated to clamber out of as and when required.  AKA Associates no longer have any ties to Wirral Council.  The reason for this remains unknown.  Link to Anna Klonowski Associates report:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxrkIjRDgrB-OGE5YzZiNWItMjQ4Yy00NDU2LTk1NDAtMTQxYmRhN2FjODhh/edit?pli=1

The findings of the AKA report will not be explored here, suffice to say they uncovered serious failings in Corporate Governance and outrageous, abusive conduct by senior officers of the council (Employees 13 and 22) and some of the appointed care contractors.  The public have yet to see a fully open and unredacted copy of the report, revealing names.  Despite hollow assurances of a new found “openness and transparency”, only a limited number of officer, councillor, contractor and advisory bodies’ names have been made viewable within it.

Many months on, the Wirral public are also patiently waiting for some semblance of accountability.  It would normally follow that a discovery of proven abuse, carried out over a period approaching a decade, and which has been thoroughly investigated – with many of the perpetrators exposed – would be acted on.  However, it seems things are done differently on Wirral, and they may not be prepared to carry the process through to any form of public reckoning or accountability.  There seems to be little desire to satisfy the growing public need for action against the abusers.  The detailed findings of the 250 page report seem to be clear and conclusive, but many of the names still remain coded to hide the real IDs, and there’s no willingness as yet to follow through on previous promises to discipline the guilty, clear out the abusers and start afresh.

So, accountability-wise, nothing much has happened, save the issuing of strings of empty words, and the calling in of LGA / SOLACE colleagues at massive expense, to ‘put things right’.  As time drags on, and fine words are trotted out in place of action, the Wirral public are becoming concerned that:

1. They’re being taken for fools

2. Those in power are not going to risk letting go of it without a fight. (Remember, this council has been found to have abused its power repeatedly over many years.)

The above FoI request aims to get under the skin of the reasoning for the council doing what they did.  Here’s what they did:

1. Suspended two senior officers named by the whistleblower in 2008.

2. Investigated them under two nom de plumes; “Employee A” and “Employee B” (See this link to an excellent and very comprehensive website):

http://blowingthewhistleonareallyrottenborou.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/%22Employee%20A%22

3. Exonerated one, sent a letter to the other, before reinstating both.  The recently new in post Council Leader, Phil Davies chaired the meeting which allowed this at the time, back in 2008.

4. Suspended the same two officers again in 2011 following the release of the supplementary AKA report.

5. In January 2012, came to an agreement with both of them, allowing them to leave by “mutual consent” the day before the full AKA report was released to the waiting public.

When things came to a head the second time around, absolutely no disciplinary process appeared to be followed by those with the power to level gross misconduct charges.  Instead they deviated from the norm and pursued what appeared to be a fully choreographed “kid glove” approach, allowing the pair to leave, paying them an as yet unknown amount of public money (UPDATE: the total shared between the two was £220,000), perhaps with a “clean bill of health”, all wrapped up in a compromise agreement, potentially with a “gagging clause”.  This clause will almost certainly specifically disallow the signatories (including potentially the issuing body) from talking about any of the circumstances which led to the officers’ departure and the issuing of the agreement, beyond a close knit circle including legal advisers, unions, the tax people and members of the signatories’ immediate family.

The wider effect of this is that any and all references to learning disabled abuse as regards these two are very effectively concealed and put to bed; right here – inside a legal document.  The legitimate and compelling public interest into the council’s hidden workings (and the decisions made) which ended in learning disabled abuse, becomes frustrated and stifled.  It’s a perfect example of a “democratic deficit” – an obstacle to openness and transparency, and a means of sidelining any chance of justice – no more, no less.

How on earth did this situation come about?  And what are the consequences?  Worryingly for everybody on Wirral who has a vulnerable relative or friend, this abusive Council happens to be the very organisation entrusted with stamping out hate crime and disability abuse.  Incidents of hate crime within the UK are on the increase, and the issue is currently more prominent in the British media and psyche, and often  flares up in areas where the responsible authorities are known to be weak or abusive.

Perhaps one has to approach this from a different angle and ask, “If the two officers weren’t directly involved in proven disabled abuse, why were they hurried out of their jobs just one day before the full version of a damning independent report was to be issued?”

Those with the power to time the issuing of the report, and to time the disposal of “Employee A” and “Employee B”… are the same people.  They work(ed) at the very top; and are found and known to have abused power in the past.  But who can step in and do something?

Although this could very easily have been predicted, it’s now become clear that one of the dismissed employees doesn’t want to rest on his laurels and go into early retirement.   Strong suspicions continue that he will have been handed a tidy sum of public money.  But he is now setting out a “well-stocked stall” on the “LinkedIn” website, hoping perhaps to pick up a senior role at another public organisation e.g. another council; a health trust; a private care provider…

Wirral Council continue to drag their feet with the above FoI request and there’s no end in sight.  The Information Commissioner has been made aware of the dangers; Tim Kelsey, now formerly the Cabinet Office Transparency and Open Data Czar knows the dangers – these people and organisations have been informed.

I hope to hear from them soon, before it’s potentially too late……..

UPDATE    4th June 2012

Council Chief Executive Jim Wilkie has applied for early retirement.  See the following item from the Wirral Globe:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/9740932.Wirral_Council_chief_asks_for_early_retirement/

It appears Mr Wilkie may be the next person to bail out.  His application is being rushed through with what looks like indecent haste, and he will most likely be allowed to go, with many benefits, and without facing accountability for his part in allowing the above dangerous situation to come about.  The Employment & Appointments committee will consider his application in just 3 days’ time.

We still cannot see who did what within the Anna Klonowski report because it remains redacted, with the important identifying details protected and hidden from public view.  It’s possible that the Chief Executive too will leave under the cover of a compromise agreement with a “gagging clause” – a legal document which will draw a veil over any malpractice.  This document will represent a “full and final settlement”.

We only have three days (until 7th June) to alert somebody with the power to step in and prevent this happening.  On 3rd June, the following updated message was sent to the DCLG; Grant Shapps; Francis Maude; Baroness Hanham and Tim Kelsey (Transparency & Open Data Guru):

Dear Sir,

There is a dangerous situation developing in my borough, which has been created by the failure of a council to apply disciplinary sanctions and make senior officers fully accountable following learning disabled abuse, and an ensuing failure to release vital information around this in the legitimate public interest, and in the interests of transparency.

One of two senior officers who left this council through “mutual consent”, potentially paid off, and almost certainly under a compromise agreement with a ‘gagging clause’ is now looking for work on the LinkedIn website.

(Link removed to protect person’s privacy)

Although the council’s CEO has admitted to learning disabled abuse; see 7.1:

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=21125

…there has been zero accountability to follow.  Moreover, it looks as though the above two departing officers have been rewarded and had their activities effectively concealed.

I tried to notify the Council’s Monitoring Officer on 17th May 2012 of this danger, but without success.  I have very briefly notified Tim Kelsey at @tkelsey1 of this on Twitter on 17th May 2012.  A consultant, name of Michael Frater, is currently being paid £1,200 per day to sort this place out following the Anna Klonowski report, however the public have no idea what he is doing, what’s been achieved and whether he has the power to prevent those who should be held accountable from departing and being pensioned off,

best regards,

Paul Cardin

PS The Chief Executive, who I believe is responsible for the above situation coming about has applied to leave the council and his application is due to be heard on 7th June. I believe urgent intervention is required to prevent this happening.  See here: http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50004413/EVR%20Report.pdf

UPDATE   10th June 2012

Mr Wilkie was granted permission to leave on 7th June 2012, just hours before the release of a damning Audit Commission report into the conduct of  Wirral’s £multimillion highways contract.  In quite hideous fashion, and apparently in complete defiance of the compelling public interest, one of the individuals who voted to allow the Council’s most senior officer to leave was the new council leader, Phil Davies.  He had recently been making promising public pronouncements about “getting to the bottom of all this”, however in this case, it seems actions speak louder than words.

Link to Freedom of Information request asking about circumstances of Chief Executive’s departure:

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

Despite early notifications of this situation to those in power, no full response has yet been received from Tim Kelsey, Grant Shapps, Baroness Hanham, Francis Maude, or any person in central government with the ability to “call in” the decision and ask some searching questions.

Link to the blog of John Brace, local campaigner, with further details:

http://johnbrace.com/2012/06/07/employment-and-appointments-committee-wirral-council-762012-item-12-early-retirement-request-jim-wilkie-chief-executive/

UPDATE 29th June 2012

Wirral Council suspends three senior officers:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/06/29/exclusive-wirral-council-suspend-three-senior-officers-including-acting-chief-executive-100252-31287051/

The three are:

Bill Norman     Director of Law

Ian Coleman    Director of Finance (Acting Council CEO)

David Taylor-Smith     Former Deputy Director of Finance

UPDATE   3rd July 2012

Response in from the office of Grant Shapps MP.  Typically of central government, and officialdom in general, the letter answers a point not asked in the first place, and glosses over the crux of the letter – the threat of disabled abuse.  It opts to minimise and describes the issues as “accountability… transparency… pay and workforce… human resource” matters, and not “threat of disabled abuse”.

UPDATE   12th July 2012

A disappointing response has been received from a senior case officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office.  The personal privacy of two ex-employees, widely believed to have been actively and cynically involved in protracted learning disabled abuse, which is known to have involved the unlawful deduction of £500,000 from Supported Living tenants’ bank accounts over a period of up to 9 years, has been placed above the welfare of disabled and vulnerable people in the north west.

Here is the response in full (My working notes are in blue):

“12th July 2012
Case Reference Number FS50438500
Dear Mr Cardin
I am writing to you concerning 2 complaints which you have made to the Information Commissioner regarding Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
FS50416628 – Your request for information on the records of senior officer’s personal interests which are held by the council
FS50438500 – Your request for information on two senior council officers Council who left their posts by mutual consent following the findings of the AKA report
Both of these cases have now been allocated to me to investigate.
As regards FS50416628 I have written a decision notice which is currently with the signatory for consideration.
As regards FS50438500 I note from the wdtk website that the council has now responded to your request, albeit by repeating its initial response to you of February 2012. (In February 2012, the Council stated that it was an ‘exceptionally complex’ request and that Section 40(2) may apply to my request but they had not yet reached a decision on whether an exemption would apply.  They then requested additional time.  It is therefore erroneous to place on record that the Council “repeated a previous response”.  This appears to have been plucked from the air and has the unfortunate effect of mistakenly adding credence to the council’s response where the is actually very little or none.)
Having looked at this request I have to say that I do not believe that you will be able to obtain this information from the council. If your assumptions are correct then the information relates to potential disciplinary matters. (In part, the request asked for “details of any disciplinary charges either planned or levelled against the two officers”.  I never requested closer details of disciplinary mattersThe ICO are therefore mistakenly or deliberately misrepresenting some of the true purpose of the original request).  At the least it relates to employment matters relating to the two individuals, and how it came about that they left their positions with the council. This is, for the most part, a private matter between the council and the individuals’ concerned. I will explain further.
I have noted that concerns have been raised about the possibility of compromise agreements being paid out by the council.  (Compromise agreements are not ‘paid out’.  They are issued.  However, public money was paid out by the Council to the two departing officers.  The compromise agreements used here, through the use of a “gagging clause” serve to conceal the amount of  public money that was paid, which was most likely very large and which evades the public interest.  This very issue goes to the heart of the request.  The legitimate and compelling public interest demands that Wirral Council adhere to their public proclamations which promise a new, enlightened approach, based around openness and transparency.  Sadly, the recurring preference for “concealment at all costs” continues to fly in the face of that.)  You have also suggested that the timing of the individuals’ departure has left questions about their reasons for leaving their posts and whether this relates to the Anna Klonowski Report findings. (The two officers departed the day before the full version of the AKA Report was finally released.  Any competent person would conclude that once they were no longer employed by the council, they could escape any sanction suggested or resulting from the content of the AKA report.  Over six months on, the general public still don’t know who did what; who the abusers are.  Also, given that the now ex-Chief Executive who authorised these departures left the council himself the day before a highly-critical Auditor’s Report on a Highways Contract (finding that a director had probably broken EU contract rules) was released.  One can reach a safe conclusion that the timing of such departures is not coincidental.) I note that questions surrounding their departure have also been asked in the media.
You have said to the council that you are happy for it to anonymise the information before disclosing it to you. (I said that way back in January, over six months ago.)  It seems likely however that a motivated individual could obtain that information by various means should they decide to do so (Which only became apparent later (the Council decided to sit tight, hold onto the information and allow events to overtake them) – the names gradually crept out long after the request was placed). My initial research also suggests that it is fairly widely assumed who the two individuals are and that these assumptions are available on the internet. (They are now, but they weren’t in January, when I first asked the question.  “Late on parade”, the ICO only decided to investigate this last week, and the Senior Officer who did the investigating told me on the phone he had only spent a paltry 5 days on it.I also note your further comment to the council that one of the individuals concerned has now advertised on “Linked in”. Clearly therefore you already know, or have assumed who this person is, and so any redaction of identity alone would not be sufficient to anonymise the information (presuming that your assumption is correct). (This is a very recent development.  I asked in January.  But I am not the issue.  I know who it is, but the public do not, and did not in January.  If and when the Council responds, the information becomes global, when everybody gets to know.  Wirral decided to prevent this from happening.Given this I do not believe that the council can anonymise the information by merely redacting the names or the job roles of the individuals concerned. (Not now they can’t, but they could have if they’d obeyed the law and provided the information at the time, or else given a reason why they weren’t providing it.)
This means that the information would be personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that the data protection principles would apply to the disclosure which you are asking the council to make. (The amount of public money they received is a compelling matter for the public interest.  Private Eye suggest that the amount is in the region of £200,000, although I don’t know how accurate this is or where the information originated.  Jim Wilkie, the last Chief Executive’s pay off figures were released.  The CEO before him, Steve Maddox, received £157,000, which only became apparent following a grinding, intensive year long battle to gain access to the information.  (UPDATE: See the ICO Highlights for the Year 2012 – NORTH WEST)Judging by this particular case, it appears lessons have not been learned.)
Where personal data is under consideration the first data protection principle requires that the disclosure of the information is ‘fair and lawful’. In general this relates to whether the individual would expect information about them to be disclosed. In the case of a disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act this would be an expectation that information about them might be disclosed to ‘any member of the public’. This is because a disclosure under the Act is considered to be global rather than just to the applicant. When making this decision the Commissioner can consider whether any of the other circumstances of the case would make a disclosure of the information fair.
The Commissioner therefore needs to consider whether the individuals would expect that detailed information about the circumstances which led them to leaving their positions within the council would be disclosed to any member of the public. If that is not the case I must consider whether the circumstances of the case would make that fair in any event. (Can it be “fair” to protect e.g. the amount of public money two people widely thought to be abusers have received, whilst knowing that this protection is likely to result in placing a large number of vulnerable/disabled people into danger?)
The first thing to consider is that, in general, employers are under an implied duty of confidence to keep personal information on their personnel confidential. Assuming that your presumptions are correct, this information may relate to the individuals disciplinary history or records. The First-tier Tribunal has provided strong guidance in relation to the disclosure of employees’ disciplinary files. (I never asked for disciplinary files!!) In many cases in the past they have found that it would be unfair to disclose such information. For instance I would draw your attention to the Tribunals decision in Waugh v ICO & Doncaster College (EA/2008/0038) available at
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB…(EA-2008-0038)%20Decision%2029-12-08.pdf
Similarly, in Lord Dunboyne v IC (EA/2011/0261 & EA/2011/0303) the Tribunal stated that:
“The Tribunal has – and will continue to – recognise the strong expectation of staff members that disciplinary matters are personal and to be kept private.” (As I did NOT ask for information on disciplinary matters or closer details, but merely “details of any disciplinary charges either planned or levelled against the two officers” – the above link is completely irrelevant to this case.  It is a false, “straw man” distraction and does not relate to my request.  The council website shows that two officers, (Employee A and Employee B) known to be these two, went through a disciplinary process in 2008 and were ultimately reinstated by a board which was chaired by the current Council Leader, Phil Davies.  There is no information on the council website to show that they went through any subsequent disciplinary process in the lead up to the release of the full AKA report in early January 2012.)
This is of course working to an assumption which you raised that their reasons for leaving relate directly to the findings in the Anna Klonowski Report. That is not a proven fact however and you recognise this within your request for information. The alternative is that the individuals left for entirely other, unrelated reasons.   If that is the case there appears to be a lesser argument for the employees’ expectations of privacy to be overridden. A disclosure of the information under those circumstances would therefore be even less likely to be ‘fair’.
Presuming that your assumption is correct, the wider issues surrounding this case can be taken into account in balancing whether a disclosure of the information would be fair. In some circumstances the legitimate interests of the public (Clearly present and growing fears about the likelihood of forseeable and avoidable disabled abuse actually coming to pass due to the authorities’ inaction would be a case in point) in having access to particular information can make a disclosure fair in spite of an individual’s general expectations that that information would not be disclosed. The arguments for this do need to be strong however due to the strong counter arguments supporting the privacy of the individuals. (I don’t think they trump the threat of abuse though do they?)  I actually asked for the following…..

1. all information you have which is connected to the
departure of the above two senior members of staff. This will
relate to meetings, hearings, discussions, and may be stored in the
form of recorded minutes, verbatim and non-verbatim notes, emails,
letters, memos, aide memoirs, whether electronically or manually.

2. details of the existence of any payments
made to the two members of staff in relation to their departure,
collectively or individually. This will include precise amounts,
the method of payment and the budget from which the payment was
derived.

3. details of the existence of any “compromise
agreements” signed by the two members of staff. This will include
confirmation of any ‘gagging clauses’ and whether a positive /
neutral / negative reference was provided regarding potential
future employment.

4. the names and addresses of all organisations /
bodies involved in providing legal advice to the two departing
officers. Please also provide details of meetings which occurred
including times, dates and matters discussed.

5. details of any disciplinary charges either
planned or levelled against the two officers in relation to the
failures which brought about their departure from the Council.

6. If either or both of the two officers were provided with a “clean
bill of health” regarding their time served at the council, please
provide a copy of this / these document(s).
It is suggested that these individuals are relatively senior council officers. This can also be taken into account in the balance. In essence, where a senior officer is concerned they should have a greater expectation that a disclosure of information about their actions may be necessary in order for the authority to be transparent and accountable to the public. This extends to any severance payments that the council made to them given that this would be paid from public funds. These are not of themselves overriding factors however and the decision still needs to be balanced and based upon all of the circumstances of the case.
However I must also bear in mind that the information that you requested does not specifically relate to the council’s actions or inactions which led to the Anna Klonowski report findings. You have asked for detailed information about the individuals leaving their posts. The information therefore relates more to the private lives of those individuals rather than to the council’s accountability. (My italics)

(I believe this last statement to be a direct kick in the teeth to the whole concept of public accountability – what hope does ‘the public good’ have with these as regulators???)
…Details of the council’s response and the actions it has taken following the report would attract a much stronger public interest argument towards disclosure. The release of the Anna Klonowski report has to some extent already opened the council’s actions to scrutiny, (nobody knows who did what.  The AKA Report remains redacted with no identifying names ascribed to the commission of the foul behaviour described within.  Wirral Council’s preference, whilst owning and controlling the report, is to continue concealing identifying names.  Officers & Councillors therefore continue to remain beyond the reach of effective scrutiny.however there is a public interest in the disclosure of the actions it has taken in response to that report (This is an extremely vague statement.  There has been no recognisable accountability to date; just gags; pay offs; more concealment, and even the broadcasting of another whistleblower’s name on the council websiteSome further senior officer suspensions are qualified as “neutral acts”.) so that the public can be reassured that this will not occur again. (What will not occur again?) The issue is where this impinges on personal privacy.
Although the council needs to be transparent and accountable for its actions, it also needs to comply with its legal obligations as regards the privacy of the individuals concerned. The information you have asked for goes to the heart of the individuals’ personnel matters with their employer. (The two officers appear to have been protected, gagged and paid off.  The problem with this is that Wirral Council may have enabled potential disabled abuse in the future, which was both forseeable and avoidable.  Nobody has yet been made accountable for abuse which has actually been admitted in writing and the person at the helm of the Council who allowed all this to occur has now left, leaving a “ticking time bomb” as a leaving present.) In effect, your request was widely drawn and encompasses the entire personnel process which led to the individuals’ leaving their posts at the council. As a result, any disclosure would be much more intrusive into the private lives of the individuals concerned. (What about the “ticking time bomb”?  What about the large, undisclosed amount of public money, apparently handed over as a reward in return for up to nine years of learning disabled abuse?)
I note your argument that one of the individuals concerned now appears to be advertising on Linked In’ however this not an issue which we are able to consider as relevant to the disclosure of the information that you have asked for in this case.
Balancing the above, I do not believe that a strong enough case can be made for the disclosure of the information to be ‘fair’ to the individuals concerned. In the terms of the Data Protection Act, the legitimate interests of the public in having access to that information do not override the fact that a disclosure would be an unwarranted intrusion into their private lives and affairs. (What about the “ticking time bomb”, the vulnerable/disabled people under threat?)
I realise that you will be disappointed that you are not able to obtain all of the information which you have asked for. Whilst I accept that if your analysis is correct there are certainly legitimate public interest arguments for some information to be disclosed, there are however also very strong arguments for information relating to an individual’s performance, personal privacy and their personal, private dealings with their employer which counterbalance, and override these interests in this case. (An employer in the care sector may take on one of these senior people unwittingly, and vulnerable / disabled people, expecting their welfare and wellbeing to be looked out for, may come under threat of abuse – far more serious than the privacy / private dealings justifications listed here, which pale by comparison)
Having said this, there may be a stronger case for the council to disclose any severance payments which it has made. The Accounts and Audit (Amendment No. 2) (England) Regulations 2009 require local authorities to publish severance payments for staff earning over £50,000, and in respect of those earning over £150,000, to publish both the amount and the name of the individual. I have therefore written to the council and asked it to let me know whether it is obliged by these regulations to publish any amounts paid to the individuals as severance payments, and if so, when it intends to make this information available. I will write to you again regarding this once I have received the council’s response.
Yours sincerely
[name of public servant removed]

Senior Case Officer

I placed a phone call with the above Senior Case Officer yesterday morning, during which he justified the ICO stance, claiming that his remit did not allow him to place the welfare of vulnerable and disabled people above that of the personal privacy and private dealings of these two ex- employees.

I told him I knew these two employees were employed by the Adult Social Services Department of a council which has independently been found to have abused power and has itself admitted to committing learning disabled abuseRather than provide accountability or some sort of reckoning, it has gagged and paid off suspected abusers and has independently been found to have engaged in the bullying of staff, including whistleblower Martin Morton.  Mr Morton was deliberately isolated in the workplace, allegedly mobbed and became the recipient of a calculated attempt to assassinate his character in a secret report, drawn up by senior officers.  Martin Morton’s health was severely damaged as a result of what most people would regard as behaviour verging on the criminal.

All this occurred despite the employer’s declared statutory duty of care for its employees’ health, laid out in the Health & Safety at Work Act.  Following this, in order to conceal the sordid details the council drew up the most draconian of compromise agreements, which included a £500 gagging clause designed to prevent Mr Morton from taking independent legal advice – a statutory human right, “set in stone” which cannot be taken away.  It also attempted to subvert article 43j within the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which provides whistleblowers with statutory protection.

A depressing by-product of the ICO erecting another obstacle to justice is that it provides much-needed succour to Wirral Council and to those potentially abusive senior members of staff still in office and still bent on evading accountability Despite the LGA Improvement Board’s welcome involvement, and “troubleshooter” Michael Frater’s extension until October 2012, the unaddressed failures can be laid at the door of the Council’s reluctance to openly identify the abusers and link them to the disgraceful malpractice discovered and described, but yet to be identified within the AKA report.  The suspension of three senior officers, and their “banishment from the workplace” may provide a ray of hope, as it’s possible their presence may have been creating obstacles beyond which accountability, co-operation and the public interest could not travel.

This weak and disappointing ICO approach, laid out by the Senior Case Officer above, seems particularly cold-hearted, with its blinkered failure to recognise or acknowledge the threat of disabled abuse, and its unwillingness to apply any pressure onto the council.  The ICO’s bureaucrats are effectively endorsing Wirral Council’s  “straight onto auto-pilot”, power abusing tactics of cover up; minimisation; denial; gagging; pay offs; obfuscation, with their dismissive, kneejerk trashing of the legitimate public interest.

Also effectively endorsed are the “information and data” failures, in the shape of Wirral Council’s entrenched and ongoing disregard for statutory law, in the shape of its historic reluctance to comply with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

The senior officer at the helm of Freedom of Information for Wirral is Ian Coleman (Director of Finance, now departed in controversial circumstances…. via “the Wirral Way”).  Here is a link to more details regarding the “Statutory Investigation Process” and a preliminary investigation currently being mounted into the three Statutory Officers at the top of the council – all suspended (two of the three are now in the clear and have left…..)

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50005267/Statutory%20Investigation%20Process%20Report.pdf

UPDATE 27th July 2012

I appear to have been fobbed off by the Department run by Paul Burstow MP.  They’ve assured me that the LGA Improvement Board are there to address any issues (Nothing specific, you’ll notice, such as the threat of disabled abuse that I warned them about).  As for the LGA Improvement Board, I’m still waiting for Michael Frater to get in touch and reassure me that he is actually doing anything at all about the imminent threat of disabled abuse.  So, lots of talk, no action.  All commitments to the need for “safeguarding” have been completely trashed by Wirral Council, the Information Commissioner’s Office, now followed closely by central government:

From: DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 27 July 2012 12:24
To: [Mr P Cardin]
Subject: Response to your Query : – Ref:DE00000712327 – Reply to your email to Paul Burstow

Our ref: DE00000712327

Dear Mr Cardin,
 
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 July to Paul Burstow about adult social services in Wirral Council.  I have been asked to reply.

Safeguarding people in vulnerable situations from all forms of abuse is a key priority for this government.  The Department is aware of the issues you raise and the investigations which have taken place locally.  Paul Burstow met with the local MP Esther McVey to discuss this matter in March.

I understand that Wirral Council has taken a range of steps in response the report prepared by Anna Klonowski.  The Council has said that new safeguarding procedures have been devised and implemented that focus on partnership working and quality.

The internal Improvement Board established in response to the Klonowski report, with the support of the Local Government Association, will monitor progress against the council’s improvement plan.  The appointment of a social care challenge director has also raised the level of internal scrutiny and challenge.

Strengthened internal governance is bolstered by external challenge and scrutiny.  The agreed peer review of adult social care has now taken place.  Timing of the corporate governance review is still subject to active consideration by the council, and is likely to take place in September.

Paul Burstow will continue to take a close interest in progress at Wirral Council.  He is currently satisfied that progress is being made, and that the right mechanisms are in place both nationally and locally to ensure that this progress is maintained.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
 
Peter Wozniak
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health

UPDATE   31st July 2012

Email to Angela Eagle, MP for Wallasey, Wirral:

From: Paul C
Sent: 31 July 2012 00:41
To: ‘eaglea@parliament.uk’
Cc: ‘michaelfrater@wirral.gov.uk’; ‘m-thomas@audit-commission.gov.uk’; ‘grant.shapps@communities.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: Threat of disabled abuse

Dear Angela Eagle,

There is an ongoing threat of disabled abuse developing in the North West of England, possibly on Wirral.  All the details are here on my blog:

http://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/departure-of-two-senior-officers-and-now-a-chief-executive-officer-from-wirral-council/

This situation was both foreseeable and avoidable, yet Wirral Council went ahead and did it anyway.  I have contacted Michael Frater, the LGA ‘troubleshooter’, who is yet to acknowledge the threat.  I have also contacted Mike Thomas, District Auditor, who is looking into it, but only from an auditor’s point of view.

I asked a question at 22nd June meeting of the LGA Improvement Board meeting, and made all the officials present aware of the danger.  The minutes have now been released for this meeting, but the details of my question are NOT recorded, which I find very frustrating:

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/downloads/4431

Contact has been made with Central Government in the shape of Grant Shapps and Paul Burstow.  Also Tim Kelsey, ex Cabinet Office transparency guru, who has since moved onto an NHS role.  None of these officials has been able to address the problem and Shapps and Burstow have passed me back to the jurisdiction of the Council, who cannot in my opinion be trusted to take the required action.

A freedom of information request was placed with Wirral Council back in January 2012, which was not acted upon until very recently (breaching the FOI Act).  The council are refusing to release the information and as you can see, the Information Commissioner’s Office are frankly useless:

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

I would now like to call upon you to raise the issue of potential disabled abuse, due to the council’s failure to discipline its officers, in Parliament and sound the alarm bells for this on my behalf,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

UPDATE   1st August 2012

Email received from Michael Frater today:

Frater, Michael michaelfrater@wirral.gov.uk

13:59 (1 hour ago)

to grant.shapps, eaglea, me, m-thomas

Dear Mr Cardin

I write to advise you that the issue you raise is one of a number of what I term ‘unresolved issues from the past’ that I have arranged to discuss with the new Chief Executive and the Acting Director of Law next week.

Yours sincerely

Michael Frater

….Note: The new Chief Executive is Graham Burgess.  See following link to the Liverpool Daily Post:

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/politics/politics-news/2012/07/20/the-big-interview-wirral-will-improve-i-promise-vows-new-chief-executive-graham-burgess-99623-31422641/

UPDATE   12th August 2012

As Wirral Council haven’t denied it, and the Information Commissioner has acknowledged that their identities are now in the public domain, it is safe to conclude that the two senior officers who were paid off with a very large and undeclared sum in public money, then allowed to depart Wirral Council under a compromise agreement and “gagging clause” the day before publication of the full Anna Klonowski report are:

Mike Fowler (Employee 13 in AKA Report)

Maura Noone (Employee 22 in AKA Report) (The Council in its reply corrected requester Pete Sheffield’s typo (Moira) , and helpfully gave the correct spelling)

Fowler is still looking for further work on the LinkedIn website.  But if he discloses to his employers any of the circumstances which led to his departure from Wirral (unlikely), this could be a breach of a gagging clause within his compromise agreement.  His former employer would then be free to take him to court to seek to recover a proportion of the public money that was paid to secure his departure.

16th August 2012 ~ Angela Eagle is yet to respond to my email of 31st July 2012 (see above), despite the compelling and urgent nature of its contents.


UPDATE   16th August 2012

Tim Kelsey, former Cabinet Office transparency guru and someone who initially appeared to display a keen interest in doing something about this has now decided to unfollow me on Twitter.  I’ll assume that threats of learning disabled abuse are no longer a priority, and something he no longer wishes to be updated on.

As for Wirral Tories, I think I can live with their decision, although their claim to be “listening to our communities” seems questionable.

UPDATE   27th August 2012

An exchange of tweets with Lib Dem care Minister Paul Burstow MP:

https://twitter.com/PaulBurstow/status/240113431590608897

Ironic & insulting: http://yfrog.com/odj87evj

UPDATE    24th August 2012

Angela Eagle has been in touch:

Letter to David Armstrong, Acting Chief Executive of Wirral Council:

Letter to Mike Smith, Chair of the Disability Committee of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission – most relevant letter with regard to the subject of Disability Discrimination:

(As of 14th November 2012, three months on, these letters have not been answered)

UPDATE   31st August 2012

Email received from Senior Case Officer at Information Commissioner’s Office:

From: <casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: 30 August 2012 08:23
Subject: re your freedom of information complaint about Wirral Council[Ref. FS50438500]
To: Paul Cardin

PROTECT

30th August 2012

Case Reference Number FS50438500

Dear Mr Cardin

Thank you for your email. I have been waiting for a copy of the withheld information from Wirral Council. I received a response on 21 August 2012 and am therefore currently drafting a decision notice on your complaint.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Yours sincerely

[Name removed]
Senior Case Officer

UPDATE   15th September 2012

Time drags on.  A couple of emails I’ve sent:

From: Paul C
Sent: 06 September 2012 00:09
To: ‘casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: Departure of two Senior Officers from Wirral Council FS50438500

FAO [name redacted]

Dear Mr [name redacted],

Please advise on progress with the Decision Notice you are drafting for this case.  It’s been well over two weeks since I received the email below,

Best regards,

Paul Cardin

From: Paul C
Sent: 15 September 2012 23:46
To: ‘casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: FW: Departure of two Senior Officers from Wirral Council FS50438500

FAO [name redacted]

Dear Mr [name redacted],

As requested over a week ago, but without response, please advise on the progress with the Decision Notice you are drafting for this case.  It’s been well over three weeks since I received the email below, which itself wasn’t sent until 9 days after you’d received notification from Wirral.  We’re now approaching the month mark.

Can I remind you that this is an urgent situation, where should either of the individuals, who weren’t disciplined, be re-employed elsewhere, vulnerable and disabled people may once again be put at risk?

To answer your original point, it has not been helpful at all, given the urgency, that you are not updating me and taking so long,

Regards,

Paul Cardin

Public servant and senior officer [name redacted]’s phone is switching to “answerphone” immediately, without ringing…. and has done for the last 2 days.

UPDATE   20th September 2012

Email received yesterday from ICO officer dealing with this:

PROTECT

19th September 2012

Case Reference Number FS50438500

Dear Mr Cardin

Thank you for your emails regarding your complaint about Wirral Council. I’m sorry I missed your call today.

As an update, I have just completed the draft of your decision notice today.  From this point the notice will go into a validation process which can sometimes take a number of weeks.  Notices can sometimes be issued faster than this however it is dependent upon the workload of the signatory, the complexity of the notice and whether the notice needs to go through a review by the Commissioner’s policy department.  It is therefore possible that the notice will be issued shortly however I am not able to specifically confirm that that will be the case.

I’m sorry that you have not received the notice earlier than this however decision notices are legal documents and therefore require careful thought and analysis. They can therefore take some time to complete as we need to be sure that we are fully aware of all the facts and that we apply the law carefully to those facts.

As regards the response to your earlier emails we try to respond to all requests for updates on complaints within 14 days.  I hope that this is helpful to you.

Yours sincerely

[Officer name redacted]

Senior Case Officer

UPDATE   11th October 2012

PROTECT

11th October 2012

Case Reference Number FS50438500

Dear Mr Cardin
 
I am writing concerning your freedom of information complaint about Wirral Council relating to a number of senior officers who left the council by mutual consent.  
 
As an update on your complaint, I have recently written to the council asking it to clarify one aspect of its arguments further. I am therefore waiting for a response from the council before the notice can be assigned to a signatory. 

I hope that this is helpful to you. 
 
Yours sincerely
 
[Officer name redacted]
Senior Case Officer

UPDATE   15th October 2012

PROTECT

15th October 2012

Case Reference Number FS50416628 and FS50438500 [THIS MATTER]

Dear Mr Cardin
 
Thank you for your emails. 
 
We confirm that based upon the evidence we have seen the council has complied with the decision notice.
 
As regards your question concerning FS50438500 [THIS MATTER], I wrote the council on 2 October 2012 and have asked for it to respond by 17 October 2012.  
 
I hope that this is helpful to you.
 
Yours sincerely
 
[Officer name redacted]
Senior Case Officer

28th October 2012

Nothing heard from Angela Eagle with regard to the two letters she kindly sent to David Armstrong and Mike Smith back in August (see the top of this blog post).  It’s now two months.  Where is the urgency?

I’ve sent the following email to her:

From: Paul C
Sent: 28 October 2012 00:42
To: ‘eaglea@parliament.uk’
Cc: ‘grahamburgess’; ‘Tour, Surjit’
Subject: Your letters to David Armstong (Wirral) and Mike Smith (EHRC) – Threat of disabled abuse

Dear Angela Eagle,

Threat of Disabled Abuse

Over two months ago, you wrote on my behalf to Interim CEO of the Council David Armstrong and also to Chair of Disabilities Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Mike Smith.

I have not heard anything from you since then.  Presumably the two correspondents will have been in touch by now, and I would be very grateful to be updated on what they’ve said.  I’d appreciate it if you could check your records and see whether they’ve responded.  Whether they have or haven’t, can you get back to me with an update?

Internally at the Council, the new CEO Graham Burgess has officially made Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour the contact point for this important issue.  However, due to lack of any correspondence from Mr Tour over many weeks, I’m forming the strong impression that despite a clear and present danger of further disabled abuse, addressing this threat is not high on the list of priorities for this council,

Many thanks in advance,

Paul Cardin

BREAKING ~ 2nd November 2012

Wirral Council have finally confirmed the size of the pay offs to Mike Fowler and Maura Noone, who left the Council under gagging clauses, within compromise agreements in January 2012:

Good Morning,

With regard to your complaint with the ICO, please find below the
information the Council can disclose to you; this relates to the 2
payments made by the Council.

There was a total payment made in each case which was severance pay +
notice + 3 months pay.

Head of Support Services   Finance Department

109,496.45 which compromised:

74,276.52 (Severance)

16,881.93 (equivalent of 12 weeks notice)

18,338.00 (3 months salary)

Assistant Director, Head of Wellbeing DASS

111, 042.95 which compromosed

75,823.95 (Severance)

16,881 (equivalent of 12 weeks notice)

18,338 (3 months salary)

The Council remains of the opinion that other information requested is
exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the FOIA as it contains
Personal Data.  The council considers that it would be unfair on the
individuals concerned to disclose this personal data and therefore would
be in breach of the 1st principle of the DPA 1998.

I have copied the ICO into this response.

Kind Regards

Jane Corrin

Information Manager

Wirral Council

UPDATE   14th November 2012

Latest email follow up to Angela Eagle, who, since she sent the above letters to Mike Smith of the EHRC (breaking news on him here) and Graham Burgess’ temporary predecessor David Armstrong at Wirral Council, has gone silent.

Dear Angela Eagle,

Threat of Disabled Abuse

Over two months ago, you wrote on my behalf to Interim CEO of the Council David Armstrong and also to Chair of Disabilities Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Mike Smith.

I have not heard anything from you since then.  Presumably the two correspondents will have been in touch by now, and I would be very grateful to be updated on what they’ve said.  I’d appreciate it if you could check your records and see whether they’ve responded.  Whether they have or haven’t, can you get back to me with an update?

Internally at the Council, the new CEO Graham Burgess has officially made Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour the contact point for this important issue.  However, due to lack of any correspondence from Mr Tour over many weeks, I’m forming the strong impression that despite a clear and present danger of further disabled abuse, addressing this threat is not high on the list of priorities for this council,

Many thanks in advance,

Paul Cardin

As a reminder, here are the issues Angela Eagle raised in each letter which remain unanswered, months on….

Letter to David Armstong

  1. Whether the council intends to continue to redact information within the Klonowski report
  2. Whether there is a need for more transparency about what has taken place
  3. Whether you and your successor would advise me ‘regarding the issues raised by my constituent’

Letter to Mike Smith (EHRC)

  1. Any observations you may have to make on:
  • Vulnerable people remaining at risk
  • Discrimination towards vulnerable residents with disabilities
  • The potential threat of further abuse
  • Following my representations to the EHRC, the issue of disability discrimination being included in the [AKA] inquiry

23rd November 2012

Response in from the ICO regarding the ‘Departure of Two Senior Officers’ aspect – the original FoI request numbered FS50438500:

PROTECT

23rd November 2012

Case Reference Number FS50438500

Dear Mr Cardin
 
Thank you for your emails. 
 
The decision notice for case FS50438500 is currently awaiting allocation to a signatory [my annotation – the officer began drafting this decision notice in late August, almost 3 months ago]. As you know, after completing the first draft of the notice I went back to the council to check on the legal aspects of some of the arguments it had submitted. As a result the council has recently disclosed details of the severance payments made to the individuals to you. I am sorry for this delay however the notice needed to take into account the councils response regarding the requirements of The Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011. 
 
As regards the councils response to decision notice FS50416628 [Register of Senior Officers Interests] I have been in correspondence with the council regarding the disclosures it has made and am currently considering its response. 
 
I hope that this is helpful to you. 
 
Yours sincerely

[Officer name redacted]
Senior Case Officer

UPDATE   6th December 2012

Email received from former Acting Chief Executive David Armstrong:

From: Lloyd, Tina A. On Behalf Of Armstrong, David
Sent: 06 December 2012 15:11
To: Paul C
Cc: Tour, Surjit; angela.eagle.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Disability Discrimination

Dear Mr Cardin

Thank you for your emails.

My understanding is that the new Chief Executive wrote to you in October advising that there would be a single point of contact with the council, Surjit Tour, the Acting Director of Law in order to provide a focused point of communication on the matters you are raising with the council.

Prior to ceasing to be the Acting Chief Executive on September 3rd and reverting to my base position in the Children and Young people’s Department I tried to deal with the outstanding matters from my period in the Acting Chief Executive post.  I can only advise you to raise outstanding matters with Surjit as requested by the Chief Executive.  I will also speak further with Surjit on this matter.

I felt that the new Chief Executive’s email was very clear re future contact.  If you felt it needed additional confirmation of the position from me and I did not provide that, then I apologise.

In respect of the matters raised, I feel that only Surjit can answer the question from yourself and Angela Eagle, MP re the redaction of some names in the AkA report,.  I was present when this matter was discussed at council and my recollection is that some changes were made to redacted material following consideration of the report.

In respect of your allegation re council staff, current or former being a threat to people with disabilities and represent a threat to their safety, Angela Eagle MP asked you to share the evidence you had with her and the Police.  In your reply of the 25th August you said you would need some time to gather evidence together.  I am not in a position to know whether this has happened but it does seem to be the logical next step in relation to the situation as you set it out in your emails.

[My comment: There may be gangsters involved – Currently, I do not feel in a position to jeopardise mine and my family’s personal safety by approaching the police]

I will discuss the matter further with Surjit Tour and am sharing this reply with him and Angela Eagle, MP.

Tina Lloyd on behalf of

David Armstrong

Deputy Director CYPD and

Assistant Chief Executive

Wirral Council

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

Site Meter

UPDATED ~ Wirral Borough Council’s Ex-CEO, Steve Maddox. Controversial early departure

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

Glasses and a top hat uid 1460650

UPDATE   December 2012

This request appeared on the ICO’s highlights for the year 2012, in the NORTH WEST section:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/latest_news/2012/ico-highlights-information-revealed-by-foi-in-your-area-20122012.aspx

18th February 2012

This week, I received an important and favourable Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner – here

13 months ago, in early January 2011, I placed the following request via the excellent WhatDoTheyKnow website:

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

This asked for information related to the circumstances in which the former CEO had apparently applied for early voluntary redundancy.  The matter had been presented for discussion at the following special committee meeting on 17th August 2010:

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=197&MId=3209&Ver=4

Here is the agenda:

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/g3209/Public%20reports%20pack,%2017th-Aug-2010%2017.30,%20Employment%20and%20Appointments%20Committee.pdf?T=10

Item 3 was restricted, and if there were any members of the public present, they would have been cleared out of the room.

BUT… The Information Commissioner has now ruled, after 13 months, that the report held here needs to be released by the Council. They were wrong to withhold the information and to place these restrictions on it.

This is the ICO Decision Notice, #FS50406724:

http://www.easyvirtualassistance.co.uk/18 02 12 – ICO Decision notice – Maddox retirement.PDF

The ICO has given the council 35 days from 15th February 2012 to supply me with the report.  Failure to do so may be reported to the High Court and treated as contempt.

Both myself and the council have the option of appealing any aspect of this decision notice to the First Tier Tribunal.

Watch this space for updates.  The report will appear here when I have it.

The report is now in.  Click here:

http://www.easyvirtualassistance.co.uk/Maddox withheld EVR request.pdf

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