Foi News

“Frankness” of Chelsea e-mails doesn’t make them secret

"Give me my hat back or they'll put me in the salt mines."

For those of you who enjoy the performances of foul-mouthed fictional political advisor Malcolm Tucker in “The Thick of It” comes a decision notice which may show that nothing is quite as weird as the real thing.

The Information Commissioner and the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) have got into a conflict about releasing internal e-mails which were written by a special adviser.

DCMS official tried to argue a special case for their special advisers saying they work under pressure and the resultant “frank” language sometimes rises to the surface.

Personally I’m all in favour of a bit of “Frankness” and think Government should not be afraid of telling us what it really thinks.

The original FoI question which sparked the whole issue was submitted in March 2007 and asked for “information concerning the takeover of Chelsea Football Club by Russian interests in 2003”.

DCMS officials turned the initial request down and by December 2007 had finally upheld that refusal following an internal review.

The applicant made an immediate complaint to the Information Commissioner and in March 2008 a limited amount of information was released by the DCMS.

But the e-mail exchanges were still withheld from the applicant with the DCMS saying they were covered by S.36. (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs).

DCMS stated that the e-mails from the special adviser included some “highly contentious and subjective information”, which if released would be likely to damage day to day relations with stakeholders in football. It said “the consequence of release would be likely to result in limiting the provision and the recording of advice by special advisers”.

But the Commissioner said he had “concerns” that S.36 was being used to withhold potentially embarrassing information, rather than because it was part of a free and frank exchange of views.

However, the Commissioner ruled the e-mails were covered by S.36, although the issue was “finely balanced”.

When considering the public interest argument the DCMS that “as special advisers worked within a high pressure/high workload environment, they generally needed to absorb information and provide deliberation and communications very quickly. At times, this may have meant arguments were put bluntly in a manner that would never be considered appropriate if the information were being prepared for publication.”

But the Commissioner rejects the DCMS pleas for leniency in regard to its Malcolm Tuckers. The ruling says: “The Commissioner is not entirely persuaded by DCMS’s comments and arguments specifically concerning special advisers. He notes the role as being one where both pressure and workload are high, and deliberation is speedy and potentially less guarded as a result. However DCMS appears to be advancing what amounts to a special case for special advisers……when in fact there is no such blanket ban.”

On the general topic of e-mails the Commissioner also made an interesting point rejecting any claims that the electronic medium should somehow be treated differently to traditional letters.

The Commissioner said: “the Commissioner has difficulty in accepting the argument advanced by DCMS that emails should be regarded as an informal medium, to which, by implication, lesser standards apply. Information contained in an email does not have any less value or standing than that contained in other media. Emails are used routinely to form part of the official record. Those using this medium to record information should at all times be aware that an email can form part of an official record.”

The conclusion of the case was that the public interest favoured disclosure of the e-mails, which the Commissioner says are “indeed frank”.

He said it was a finely balanced case but “given the position of football in British culture and the high profile position of Chelsea FC, there is a strong public interest in transparency and openness in promoting a better understanding both of the Government’s stance of foreign ownership and how that was arrived at.”

The DCMS was also given a public telling-off for taking more than 150 working days to conclude the applicant’s request for an internal review.

I have asked the DCMS to release the e-mails and you can see the request [here] and the Decision Notice link is [here].

I couldn’t help myself either but below are some of Malcolm Tucker’s finest foul-mouthed tirades. The journalist in me can only hope that life imitates art and these e-mails say something quite unpleasant at the prospect of the Russians running our football teams.

If you are offended, upset, disturbed or feel midly unpleasant when listening to people swear do NOT click on the link below.

JOB – FoI and Document Control – £18k/£21k – nr Cambridge

Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – FoI and Document Control – £18k/£21k – nr Cambridge

Closing date: February 22, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

JOB – Complaints & Members Enquiries Manager – £39k/£43k – East London

Newham Council – Complaints & Members Enquiries Manager – £39k/£43k – East London

Closings date: February 22, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

Awaiting a Tribunal with Godric

Godric Smith. Paid £225,000 last year. Should we know how good a job he is doing as Communications boss at the ODA?

I’ve been in business as DataNews for more than a year now and have had a number of cases filter through the office of the Information Commissioner.

Some I’ve won and a couple I have lost, but up until Christmas there was not a case that I was prepared to go to the barricades for and pursue through to the Information Tribunal.

Well, I have now lodged an appeal with the new Tribunal office in relation to a complaint I made about the way my FoI request was dealt with by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA).

The ODA is the organisation tasked with spending £9billion of public money building the site for the 2012 Olympics in Stratford, north-east London.

I should say at this point that I am NOT anti-sport or anti-Olympics and have no grudge against the ODA, indeed I grew up a javelin’s throw away from the site of the 2012 games.

What gets my goat in this particular case is the privacy that is afforded to some of the country’s highest paid public servants.

David Higgins, the Aussie Chief Executive of the ODA, has cost the organisation more than £1million in salary and bonus payments in just the last two years.

His basic salary in 07/08 was £373k plus a tasty £205k bonus and in 08/09 it was £384k + £209k bonus.

What I wanted to know was the criteria for paying Mr Higgins these huge bonus payments – especially given their huge size and the fact that the ODA cannot be accurately assessed as being a success or not until the opening ceremony of the Games.

My request asked for the criteria on which his bonus payment was assessed, whether he qualified for 100% of his potential bonus payment and if he didn’t qualify for the whole lot which areas he was deemed as coming up short in. My argument is that this is no longer personal information, as it might well be for an employee further down the food chain.

In the rarefied atmosphere of the ODA boardroom we the public deserve and have the right to know what he is being paid a bonus for and more importantly what he is NOT being paid a bonus for.

The Commissioner looked at the arguments and ruled against me saying that the information I wanted was still subject to a S.40 (Personal Information) exemption as to supply me with the figures would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.

I also asked for similar data in relation to Godric Smith, a former resident of Prime Minister Blair’s press office and now the £192,000 + £33 bonus Head of Communications for the ODA. My request for his bonus criteria were also refused on the same basis, although Mr Smith wrote the Commissioner a letter stating how the release of his bonus details would “cause unwarranted interference”.

So, I have now embarked upon a battle to see if I can overturn the Commissioner’s decision and the ODA secrecy wishes at the Tribunal.

I think this is a key point because if these sort of details cannot be extracted from people in positions like Higgins and Smith then we might as well wave the white flag and go home.

For some reason the Commissioner has not (I can’t find it) put the decision notice on the website so at the moment I cannot provide people with a link to the document. When it does go up there I’ll post it up. It is Ref: FS50259954

Also I’ll be putting in a request to the Commissioner asking for a copy of Godric Smith’s letter. See the link [here].

As I will probably be up against somebody from 11KBW being paid thousands to keep the information secret I’d be grateful for any help or advice.

NOTE: Apologies for not updating the site much over Christmas/New Year. Pressure of work. But I hope to get back into the swing of things again now.

JOB – Informatics Officer – £22k/£29k – Chelmsford

Essex County Council – Informatics Officer – £22k/£29k – Chelmsford

February 10, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

JOB – Government Relations Manager – £30k/£35k – London

Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission – Government Relations Manager – £30k/£35k – London

Closing date: February 15, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

JOB – Information Governance Manager – £25k/£33k – Stafford

Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust – Information Governance Manager – £25k/£33k – Stafford

Closing date: February 9, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

JOB – Communications Officer – £25k/£33k – London

NHS Hounslow – Communications Officer – £25k/£33k – Hounslow

Closing date: February 12, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

JOB – Senior Records Manager – £30k/£39k – Stoke-on-Trent

Stoke on Trent PCT – Senior Records Manager – £30k/£39k – Stoke-on-Trent

Closing date: February 9, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

A slowish welcome in the hillsides

Cardiff City Council and the UK Border Agency (UKBA) have both had their knuckles rapped by the Information Commissioner for the shoddy way they have been dealing with internal reviews.

The Freedom of Information Act states that an authority should take no more than 20 working days to complete an internal review of a decision when asked to by an applicant. In exceptional cases this deadline can be extended to 40 days.

However, what the Commissioner uncovered at the two authorities showed that the internal review procedures were in disarray.

At Cardiff the Information Commissioner uncovered evidence that some reviews were still incomplete despite being open for two years. An Information Notice was issued to the Council to obtain exact details on the issues which revealed significant problems around the way internal appeals were logged.

The UKBA has also got in trouble after figures revealed it was taking too long to consider internal reviews. Between August 2008 and January 2009 just one in ten reviews were dealt with inside the 20 days guideline and almost two-thirds took more than 40 days for a resolution.

Gerrard Tracey, Assistant Information Commissioner, said: “Responses to internal reviews need to be prompt. The right to request an internal review is an important information right for members of the public.

“Authorities must understand that, although we will work with them to improve their practice, the informal resolution of compliance or conformity issues will not be pursued indefinitely.

“We will take action against those who show a lack of progress, commitment and engagement with regards to their responsibilities under the Act.”

Both authorities were issued with a practice recommendation from the Commissioner. The UKBA’s one can be seen [here] and Cardiff City Council’s [here].