A new lurch towards secrecy. Klonowski Report buried over Christmas?

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

gardening shovel uid 996731

UPDATE   3rd January 2013

The minutes are there.  They were there before Christmas, but I never had the chance to update.

Here is a link

I’ve been right through them and there is one mention of the mysterious ‘Standards Working Group’ meeting ~ the body that the officers I’d spoken to had never heard of.  Here’s the excerpt – all very vague – nothing specific at all.  Why is the meeting being called?  It doesn’t say.  [My emphasis]:

“Members gave consideration to a proposal that one of the Independent Persons be
invited to attend each meeting of the Standards Working Group. It was noted that
the next meeting of the Working Group was scheduled for 4pm on Monday, 10
December 2012 in Committee Room 2 of the Town Hall, Wallasey. The Committee
agreed that it wished to be as transparent as possible and that the proposal was an
appropriate way forward.”

There is no mention whatsoever on the Wirral.gov.uk website of a ‘Standards Working Group’ At least not in the places where you’d expect them to be, despite them wishing to be as ‘transparent as possible’.  A good start would be to tell us the public that you actually EXIST….

So it seems the public are once again plunged into the dark about what may be happening with the redacted Klonowski report – the one that has quite deliberately failed to reveal the names of abusers at Wirral Council, but has succeeded in blocking the legitimate and compelling public interest for almost a whole year.

This failure has been the shifting sands upon which have been built some pretty disgraceful, dangerous, self-serving, unwritten policies:

  • The issuing of a stack of compromise agreements (full and final settlements) which were never counted, recorded or properly scrutinised by any internal democratic processes
  • The gagging and paying off of senior officers widely regarded to have been involved in the protracted high level abuse of learning disabled people and the bullying and targeting of at least one whistleblower
  • The enabling of future abuse by top level managers, protecting senior officers widely regarded to have been involved in the protracted high level abuse of learning disabled people and the bullying and targetting of at least one whistleblower
  • The payment of a ‘reward’ to failed public servants.  A running total estimated to be between £810,000 and £1 million in public money.  (See this story which perversely overlooked Wirral Council.  Even the Daily Mail is right sometimes)

Will this report finally have the names revealed, in order to satisfy the growing public interest?

Or will it be buried as deep as nuclear waste?  Has it been buried as deep as nuclear waste… over Christmas?  While we were all looking the other way?

Wirral Council are now gaining a deservedly black as soot reputation for serial and deliberate manipulation of the public record, and given the failure to record in these minutes the date and purpose of the ‘standards working group’ which was to deal with this issue, I now fear the worst…

Is there a councillor reading this who can enlighten us, the people, the ones who voted him/her into office as a public servant?

FURTHER UPDATE   3rd January 2013

I’ve found something at last….

…..entitled Standards Working Group – Terms of Reference.  It all looks rather self-serving, and a practised and cynical exercise in deceitful doublespeak.  Machiavelli would be fiercely proud of it.  But what would you expect with abusive Wirral Council – the only council in the land to be monitored by the Information Commissioner for poor timeliness?  Honesty?  Openness?  Transparency?  You’re having a laugh….

Telling excerpt from the document:

Meetings of the Working Group shall be held in private and the provisions relating to
Access to Information shall not apply.

So… a committee which apparently agreed it wished to be as transparent as possible, by inviting a so-called ‘independent’ member, is to convene in secret.

The Klonowski report, costing the local public £250,000 and now possibly kicked into the long grass,  has had many of its recommendations ignored.

AKA Services are free to re-board the gravy train, and full steam ahead to the next basket case council, conduct the next unrecorded, unminuted investigation, potentially have it all ignored and collect a bloated cheque for services rendered.

Here on Wirral, in the wake of this ‘damning’ report, an admission to the long term abuse of learning disabled people, no disciplinary charges for anybody and 66 councillors granted a clean bill of health, the only areas refreshed and renewed appear to be the lies, the delays, the cover ups, the blaming of the public, the naming of a whistleblower, and the infamous, self-serving machinations…

UPDATE   16th January 2013

On 14th January, the public were illegally ushered out of a public Pensions Meeting, breaching the 1960 Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, Section 1 (4) (c):

“while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting and duly accredited representatives of newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report and, unless the meeting is held in premises not belonging to the body or not on the telephone, for telephoning the report at their own expense.”

So, they’re still flexing their muscles and making up their own rules as they go along.  As the anniversary of the publication of the ‘damning’ (which cost us £250,000 but never actually damned anybody) Klonowski Report passes, the bullies seem to be regaining the upper hand.

More here: Link to John Brace Blog

Wirral Standards Committee Meeting held on 19th November 2012

Despite clear internal guidance…… Wirral Council wrongly attempted to use an “Equality Impact Assessment” to help councillors…

The following is the internal document in question, dated 9th November 2012.  The document is headed “Proposal for Officer Options for Savings” – very vague – looks like a deliberate misrepresentation and a world away from the actual contents, which are deeply unsettling.  This was first looked at at a Standards Committee Meeting on 19th November 2012:

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/documents/s50007853/EIA%20-Disclosure%20of%20Confidential%20Reports%20under%20the%20Previous%20Ethical%20Framework.pdf

Page 1

Proposal for Officer Options for Savings –

Equality Impact Assessment Template

(Oct 2012)

Section 1:

Your details

EIA lead Officer: Shirley Hudspeth

Email address:shirleyhudspeth@wirral.gov.uk

Head of Section: Stephen Gerrard

Chief Officer: Surjit Tour

Department: Law, HR and Asset Management

Date: 9 November 2012

Section 2:

What Council proposal is being assessed?

DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATION REPORTS UNDER THE ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

(PRIOR TO 1 JULY 2012)


Page 2

Section 2b:

Will this EIA be submitted to a Cabinet or Overview & Scrutiny Committee?

Standards Committee on 19 November 2012

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/my-services/community-and-living/equality-diversity-cohesion/equality-impact-assessments/eias-010/law-hr-asset-management [broken link]

If ‘yes’ please state which meeting and what date

……………………………………………………………

Please add hyperlink to where your EIA is/will be published on the Council’s

website Law, HR & Asset Management

……………………………………………………………

Section 3:

Does the proposal have the potential to affect…… (please tick relevant boxes)

Services

The workforce

Communities

x

Other (please state eg: Partners, Private Sector, Voluntary & Community Sector)

If you have ticked one or more of above, please go to section 4.

None (please stop here and email this form to your Chief Officer who needs to

email it to equalitywatch@wirral.gov.uk for publishing)


Page 3

Section 4:

Could the proposal have a positive or negative impact on any of the protected groups (race, gender, disability, gender reassignment, age, pregnancy and maternity, religion and belief, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership)? (Note from Ed: ‘Does anybody see ‘Wirral Councillors’ mentioned in these protected groups?)

You may also want to consider socio-economic status of individuals.

Please list in the table below and include actions required to mitigate any potential negative impact.

Which group(s) of people could be affected

Potential positive or negative impact

Action required to mitigate any potential negative impact

Lead person

Timescale

Resource implications

All

Negative Impact – Details could be disclosed that relate to complainants and Councillors.

The investigation reports relate to historical issues and matters that could give rise to

adverse affects upon the individuals referred to in the reports

Standards Committee can decide not to disclose the reports thereby ensuring no

information is provided in the public domain. The status quo would continue.

Acting Director of Law, HR and Asset

Management

3 months

To be determined


Page 4

Section 4a:

Where and how will the above actions be monitored?

Through the committee arrangements of the Council.

Section 4b:

If you think there is no negative impact, what is your reasoning behind this? N/A

Section 5:

What research / data / information have you used in support of this process?

The report was requested at the last meeting of the Standards Committee.

Relevant legislation and legal duties upon the Council have been considered.

Section 6:

Are you intending to carry out any consultation with regard to this Council proposal?

No – not at this time however if a final decision is to be taken, consultation with

Members and those potential affected would be undertaken.

If ‘yes’ please continue to section 8.

If ‘no’ please state your reason(s) why:

(please stop here and email this form to your Chief Officer who needs to email it to

equalitywatch@wirral.gov.uk for publishing)

Section 7:

How will consultation take place and by when?

Before you complete your consultation, please email your preliminary EIA to

equalitywatch@wirral.gov.uk via your Chief Officer in order for the Council to ensure it is

meeting it’s legal requirements. The EIA will be published with a note saying we are awaiting outcomes from a consultation exercise.


Page 5

Once you have completed your consultation, please review your actions in section 5. Then email this form to your Chief Officer who needs to email it to equalitywatch@wirral.gov.uk for re-publishing.

Section 8:

Have you remembered to:

a)

Add appropriate departmental hyperlink to where your EIA is/will be

published (section 2b)

b) Include any potential positive impacts as well as negative impacts? (section 5)

c) Send this EIA to equalitywatch@wirral.gov.uk via your Chief Officer?

d) Review section 6 once consultation has taken place and sent your completed

EIA to equalitywatch@wirral.gov.uk via your Chief Officer for re-publishing?

<<<Document ends>>>

So, the clear aim of this, coupled with this, seems to be to conceal and protect the identities of individuals (e.g. officers, councillors, service providers) – known but withheld for a long time by Bill Norman, his successor Surjit Tour and others in the loop, but still concealed from public view in the published versions of both the Klonowski (failure of governance) and Smith (Bullying and abuse of power) reports…. and others.

It’s also deeply disturbing how ‘Wirral Councillors’ have somehow been crowbarred in as a ‘protected group’, alongside race, gender, disability, maternity, religious groupings.  How dare they?

It’s stated in a quite brazen way that there will be no consultation, and that a committee (populated by councillors and / or colleagues who stand threatened by having their names revealed) will have the final say after (maybe) consulting ‘members’ and ‘those affected’.  And we all know what decision will be reached by this committee, don’t we, even without waiting for the council committee system to go through the motions.

I tried to ring Shirley Hudspeth, this document’s author, in an attempt to find out.  She wasn’t available, neither was Surjit Tour, but the person taking the call said she’d call me back as soon as she knew what decision had been made by the Standards Committee.  She did come back, telling me that the matter has been referred to the Standards Working Group.  I can find no reference to such a group in the council’s list of committees, so the water is muddied still further.

22nd November

I spoke to Shirley Hudspeth today, who confirmed that the list of protected groups mentioned above was exhaustive.  I asked why then had councillors been included in it.  She couldn’t answer this, advising me that once the minutes for the Standards Committee of 19th November had been issued, the public could discover which ‘Standards Working Group’ (comprising 1:1:1 across the parties) will be sitting and on what date.  With regard to EIAs (Equality Impact Assessments), she asked me to ring Jacqui Cross who is the Council’s Equalities Officer.

Jacqui Cross confirmed to me that the primary purpose of EIAs  was to aim to cater for the impact that savings decisions would make on the protected groups.  She agreed with me that councillors may individually be included, but ‘councillors’ per se, grouped together within independent reports, should not have been included in this way and that any statement relating to investigations and the suppression of existing information had no place in an Equality Impact Assessment.  She is going to look at this and I will hopefully be able to set up a useful dialogue here, with the intention of putting some serious questions to the Council’s senior law officer – who is the driving force behind this accompanying document.

As the public are aware, there has been absolutely no accountability or reckoning for the long term abusers of disabled people or the people who bullied whistleblowers at Wirral Council, whether they be councillors, senior officers or service providers.  This could be why councillors and senior officers feel able to flex their muscles again.  Thinking they’ve got away with it, it’s quite possible they’re once again infused by arrogance, feeling impregnable in their positions and wanting to make sure by burying this one as deep as nuclear waste.
There’s an opportunity here for the council to finally, at long last, act in the public good and make widely available these names in the interests of openness and accountability.  Let’s face it, the public interest in revealing the names of the protected parties outweighs the public interest in continuing to conceal them.  Angela Eagle wrote an urgent letter to the Interim Head of the Council David Armstrong in August of this year.  This specifically asks whether the council is going to continue to protect the identities of people found to have been involved with abuse towards learning disabled people.  The letter remains unanswered.

But under a non-specific guise of protecting complainants’ and councillors’ wellbeing (?) ….

“…matters that could give rise to adverse affects (sic) upon the individuals referred to in the reports…”

…. we may be prevented from seeing a final reckoning for those involved in abuse.  Exactly what are these ‘adverse affects’ (sic)?

Nothing seems to have changed.  It still seems to be the abusers and their protectors who are calling the shots.

Anna Klonowski’s machinations are still in full flow, churning away, and being replenished and nourished anew.

Could the need to conceal public servants up to their necks in abuse and other hidden agendas be why they are currently seeking to ban filming?

UPDATE   27th November 2012

It was a good job I rang the council last week, because it seems it was all a mistake.  They should never have used the Equality Impact Assessment form for an issue that involved Wirral Councillors.  I got the impression it would have been highly embarrassing for them if councillors had benefitted from this error.

Jacqui Cross has reassured me that Shirley Hudspeth will be putting the situation right and removing the offending document from the council website.

However, given the historical tendency at Wirral for abuse, malpractice and cover up, people might say this was deliberately done – the use of equality legislation as a kind of trojan horse, deployed to usher in more secrecy AND protection….. for councillors.

UPDATE 30th November 2012

Shirley Hudspeth has now had the embarrassing item removed from the council’s website.

Screen shot here:

30 11 12 - embarrassing item removed from wirral website

UPDATE   14th December 2012

The public are still waiting for the minutes for the 19th November Standards Committee Meeting to arrive.

Until they do arrive, we won’t know where or when the correct ‘standards working group’ meeting will be held that will aim to finally do away with any chance of accountability resulting from the £250,000 Anna Klonowski full report.

It’s been a long time now, but will it happen this side of Christmas?

Has the meeting already happened?  With Wirral Council, we just don’t know, because it really is all up in the air….

Site Meter

Wirral #FoI news. Whistleblower ‘accidentally’ identified on Wirral Council Website

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

Eggs falling out of nest in tree branch uid 1180681

Silhouette of man yelling into a bullhorn uid 1272227

11th July 2012

The following FoI request was placed today, after the identity of a Highways Department whistleblower was ‘accidentally’ made available to the whole world via the Wirral Council Website.

This was in relation to the HESPE contract, awarded to COLAS in 2008 and later found to have been riddled with impropriety.  The Director involved, whose own brother used to work for the winning bidder, was suspended from his job back in March of this year.  He has since been cleared with ‘no case to answer’, courtesy of somebody who spends a lot of time defending senior council officers in trouble, and has also watched several colleagues being either cleared, gagged, paid off or all three since he hung his boots up.

The offending letter was taken down quickly, but too late…. the damage was already done.

The place is in turmoil, and seasoned observers of Wirral Council have interpreted this behaviour as a calculated ‘shot across the bows’ of any existing staff, who may have been considering following in the footsteps of Martin Morton, Andy Campbell and the person involved in this case, Gary Downey (who is one of a group of courageous and as yet unnamed whistleblowers).

As far as Wirral Council are concerned the watchwords are ‘Whistleblower Beware’, given that those prepared to act in the public good seem to have been branded as troublemakers, threatened and hounded out of their jobs, had their identities unfairly revealed or had their personal health and wellbeing put through the mincer.  Compare this if you will to the treatment given to abusive senior officers.  As the anniversary of the Anna Klonowski Report passes, the abusers’ real identities are still jealously guarded, having been replaced by numbers – which cleverly subverts the pesky little process known as ‘Accountability’.

So a big thank you to the LGA ‘Improvement’ Board – whom I assume must have been endorsing the council’s crazed, swivel-eyed, tongue lolling, anti-democratic practices.  More depressing legal news reaches me connected to the behaviour of this woeful bunch.

Watch this space for updates.  The request is currently with Surjit Tour, new boss of Legal who, along with 3 other staff, has taken up the department’s workload since Bill Norman, former Director of Law, was recently paid off.

Here is the FoI request:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_letter_published_on_webs#incoming-330708

UPDATE   12th November 2012

As you’ll see, there’s no real urgency attached for them, and it’s taken four months to acknowledge receipt.   Once again, they’re in breach of the Freedom of Information Act.

“Tell us something new” I hear you saying.

UPDATE   29th November 2012

The ICO have been in touch, telling me that they’ve contacted Wirral Council by letter and given them 10 working days from receipt of the letter to either furnish the information or provide a valid reason for not doing so:

PROTECT

29 November 2012

Case Reference Number FS50475062

Dear Mr Cardin

Your information request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Thank you for your correspondence dated 6 October 2012 in which you complain about Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s failure to respond to your information request which is outlined below;

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

When considering complaints about delayed or failed responses to information requests our priority is to ensure requesters receive a response as quickly as possible (where one has not been provided) and to monitor any persistent trends which might indicate that a public authority was routinely failing to respond within the statutory 20 working days permitted under section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act.

We monitor complaints where a serious contravention of section 10 is recorded and where persistent contraventions occur we will consider placing a public authority on our monitoring programme (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/promoting_openness/monitoring_compliance.aspx ).

I have written to the public authority to provide them with a copy of your original request, reminding them of their responsibilities and asking them to respond to you within 10 working days of receiving our letter. I enclose a copy of my letter to the public authority for your information. The late response will be recorded and as described will form part of our ongoing activity to consider the performance of public authorities and the Freedom of Information Act in the future.

Should you wish the Information Commissioner to issue a decision notice for your specific complaint we are able to do so, however it is important to note that the Commissioner does not need to serve a decision notice in an individual case in order to use that case as evidence for enforcement action.

If Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council responds and refuses to release the information you have asked for and you are dissatisfied, you may, after exhausting their internal complaints procedure, complain to us again.

I have enclosed a fact sheet explaining more about our complaint handling procedures. At this point the case has been temporarily closed and I would like to thank you for bringing this these concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner. If you do not receive a response within 10 working days please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter.

If you require any further assistance then please contact me on the number below.

Yours Sincerely

[Officer name redacted]
Case Officer
First Contact
Information Commissioner’s Office

UPDATE   18th January 2013

I gave them plenty of opportunity to respond (6 weeks plus), but nothing’s arrived – so I’ve sent the following to the ICO today:

From: Paul C
Sent: 18 January 2013 09:33
To: ‘casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: RE: ICO Response Re: Information request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council[Ref. FS50475062]

Dear [Case office name redacted]

Wirral Council has failed to provide the information connected to this request, despite you writing to them several weeks ago.

In my own experience there have been several persistent contraventions and I thank the ICO for placing this organisation onto the current monitoring programme.

I would now request that you issue a Decision Notice with regard to this request in order to bring them into compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

I look forward to receiving a response from you in good time,

Best regards,

Paul Cardin
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