EXCLUSIVE: 8 page briefing note leads to Wirral’s councillors agreeing to further FOI discussions behind closed doors
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Councillors discuss Wirral Council’s response to Freedom of Information Act requests at a meeting of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee on the 3rd December 2015
Cllr Phil Gilchrist addresses the Transformation and Resources Committee about freedom of information requests 3rd December 2015
Yesterday saw councillors discuss freedom of information requests and how Wirral Council handles them in response to this Lib Dem motion. As a number of the ICO decision notices are in response to my requests, I will declare an interest before writing any further.
Interestingly, the day before the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee met, Surjit Tour had written an eight page "briefing note" which was referred to by councillors during the debate.
The Conservative amendment to the motion was withdrawn and the Labour amendment to have a task and finish group of councillors meeting to discuss FOI behind closed doors (again) on the subject (in the spirit of openness and transparency of course!) was agreed.
You can watch the video of councillors discussing this item above.
However what will probably make more interesting reading is the briefing note itself which I reproduce below (it’s not published with the papers for the committee or indeed anywhere else). It’s a bit hard to summarise eight pages, but it’s basically eight pages of justification by officers that they’re doing their best they can on FOI (with the promise of improvements) and that it isn’t as bad as the bleak picture as painted by Lib Dem politicians. If the thumbnails are hard to read, they should each link to a more high resolution version of each page.
Surjit Tour briefing note on FOI to Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee page 1 of 8 thumbnail
Wirral Council’s Standards Committee agrees recommendation on changes to notices of motion procedural rules
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting held on the 23rd November 2015
Surjit Tour explains to councillors the effect of proposed changes to procedural rules at a meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee 23rd November 2015
One of the changes agreed by councillors at last night’s meeting of Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee was a change to the protocol for dealing with referred notices of motion. Referred notices of motion are notices of motion that have been sent by Wirral Council’s Mayor to one of Wirral Council’s committees to debate instead of being debated at a Council meeting.
The changes to time limits on speeches for the proposer (5 minutes) and right of reply (3 minutes) were to bring the time limits in line with new time limits proposed for Council meetings.
However an extra category of speaker has been added. This is described in the new rules as "any other person" and they will have three minutes to speak. "Any other person" is described as "at the discretion of the Chairperson, other persons with expertise on the subject of the Motion may be invited to attend the meeting at which it is to be considered"
These new rules won’t apply to next week’s high-profile Notice of Motion Proposal for a fire station on green belt land in Saughall Massie to be discussed by councillors on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee at a public meeting starting at 6.00pm on the 2nd December 2015 in Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall. This is because the recommendation by the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (if agreed by Council on the 14th December) won’t come into effect until the 15th December 2015. At a previous meeting of the Regeneration and Environment Committee councillors wanted to ask questions of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service officers about why they wanted to build a new fire station in Saughall Massie.
UPDATED: Wirral Council U-turns on secrecy of Chief Officer’s early retirement in only 26 hours!
UPDATED: Wirral Council U-turns on secrecy of Chief Officer’s early retirement in only 26 hours!
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Employment and Appointments Committee 21st September 2015 L to R Surjit Tour (Legal), Cllr Adrian Jones (Chair) and Tony Williams (Human Resources)
Correction/update An earlier version of this story linked the Employment and Appointments Committee decision to the departure of Malcolm Flanagan. The Employment and Appointments Committee decision was about the early retirement of another Chief Officer Strategic Director Kevin Adderley whose early retirement has been confirmed by Wirral Council.
Yesterday’s Employment and Appointments Committee meeting (see above) was another masterclass in how politicians will seemingly agree to anything that senior officers ask them to do (however nonsensical).
I asked to speak at the meeting to challenge excluding the press and public (a decision that affects me) for the early retirement item and as Mr. Tour stated during the meeting previously early retirements of chief officers (Jim Wilkie’s cost around £111k to Wirral Council) were considered in public. The request to speak was denied.
There is a slight irony to this as when Mayor Cllr Adrian Jones signed up to article 21. Article 21’s interpretation has meant that at other council’s public meetings the public get to speak … but not at Wirral Council when a decision is being made about them by the whole Committee.
I gave the Chair and Mr. Tour a bunch of public interest reasons (the high cost to Wirral Council of early retirement, the cost of recruiting to that post if it isn’t deleted, scrutiny of politicians etc) before the meeting. All ignored, the public were asked to leave and by around 7.30pm at a public meeting, after excluding the public at around 5.05pm, Wirral Council was announcing a name of a chief officer that was retiring (but not the one the Employment and Appointments Committee made an early retirement decision on). Malcolm Flanagan’s departure was announced but Kevin Adderley’s retirement was still a secret until the next day.
The Head of HR wasn’t present at the Employment and Appointments Committee meeting, she was also due to present a report on attendance management to the Transformation and Resources Committee later that evening, however she was absent from that meeting too (yes I do spot the irony in being absent from a meeting where you’re supposed to be presenting a report on why people are absent from work).
Councillor John Salter did ask the Wirral Council officer in her place at the later meeting about the “attendance management” of Emma Degg only to be told that Wirral Council don’t comment on individual cases.
This perhaps shows councillors that as far as officers are concerned they’re the ones running things and councillors can keep their nosy questions to themselves. If they do have the gall to ask them they will be brushed off. The official motto of Wirral Council is “By Faith and Foresight”.
At Wirral Council officers have been leading the Council since as long as anyone can remember (despite what the councillors may say to the contrary). Here are three examples (with the catchphrase of Churchill’s nodding dog).
Will councillors approve officer recommendations for parking charges for Fort Perch Rock car park?
Councillors: Oh yes.
Will councillors do a U-turn on parking charges for Fort Perch Rock car park?
Councillors: Oh yes.
Will councillors decide to close a much-loved special school called Lyndale?
Councillors: Oh yes.
Here are three examples when councillors or those tasked with corporate governance ask officers something.
Will you renegotiate the Schools PFI contract to save money and save having to make massive cuts to the education budget which will cut support for those with special education needs?
Officer: Oh… no.
Will you answer questions about why Emma Degg left?
Officer: Oh… no.
Will you stop using long Powerpoint presentations to deliberately take up so much public meeting time so that nobody on a scrutiny committee has time (or very little time) to ask you questions?
Officer: Oh… no.
So there you go, Wirral Council summarised concisely.
As it was pointed out to me recently by a councillor that I need to be more positive, I will end by wishing Malcolm Flanagan all the best for his retirement and point out that not all officers at Wirral Council are like those described above. Some are decent human beings that work hard in difficult jobs and don’t get nearly enough thanks from either the press, public or politicians.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
However parts 15, 18, 19 and 26 of the request were refused by Wirral Council again.
All those four parts of the request have been withheld because Wirral Council decides that section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) is engaged. The minutes of the Safeguarding Reference Group (part 26) have an additional reason for refusal because of section 40 (personal information).
I of course plan to appeal this latest refusal to ICO again (which probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone). Essentially however the problem I face to do with this request (which may be familiar to those who make FOI requests and have more experience than I do).
Public body decides on a reason to refuse a FOI request initially and at internal review (this stage could take up to 60 days). ICO disagree with the reason and issue a decision notice requiring the public body not to use that reason for refusing that request and to either provide the information or another reason.
So the public body comes up with another reason. That reason is challenged at internal review (again adding another 60 days). That reason is then appealed to ICO who disagree with the reason and ICO issue another decision notice.
The public body picks another reason to refuse the request and eventually it becomes a merry-go-round. The public body clearly really doesn’t want to give up the information, yet ICO is giving the public body a loophole each time a decision notice is issued by giving them a chance to pick another reason.
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
The Information Commissioner’s Office (which I will refer to as ICO) have issued a decision notice about a Freedom of Information Act request made by Nigel Hobro to Wirral Council. The unique number for this decision notice is FS50559883. It’s not yet on ICO’s website but should be in the near future. ED: Updated 04/09/2015 I looked on ICO’s website and it has been published since this article was written and decision notice FS50559883 can be viewed on ICO’s website.
The Freedom of Information Act request is for an “incomplete internal audit investigation report” and was originally made on the 20th August 2014.
The reasons given by both Surjit Tour and Eric Robinson for not supplying the information requested (both times an apology was given for taking too long to reach a decision) were two-fold:
section 36(2)(c) Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
Interestingly the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council that applying section 36(2)(c) was reasonable but disagreed with the public interest test element.
ICO requires Wirral Council to take the action below within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice dated the 24th August 2015. This is assuming that Wirral Council do not appeal the decision:
"Disclose the withheld information with redactions made under section 40(2) for the names of individuals within the report"
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
