HDC and transparency

I asked for a copy of the lease between HDC and Turnstone Estates. Easy enough I would have thought. This was on 2nd March 2012. On 5th March I received the following reply:

Freedom of Information Group noreply@huntsdc.gov.uk
05/03/2012
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request No 2176.

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. We have received your request and it has been passed to the appropriate Officer for investigation.
As required by the Freedom of Information Act we will be responding to you within the next 20 working days. However, there may be some instances where it will not be possible to deal with such an application within 20 working days. If this is the case we will contact you to give an estimate of the date by which we expect to reach a decision.

I should have received something by the end of business on 30th March 2012. On 17th April 2012 I received the following:

Re: Freedom of Information Act– FOI Request No. 2176

I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by the Authority under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act.

You requested “Closing Orders and Demolition orders made by the Huntingdon Rural District Council…. Minutes for the Council for the period 1957 - 1972?”  -  Err.. No I didn't

Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested.

This letter acts as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

The exemption applied is Section 21: Information accessible by other means. These records are held at Huntingdonshire Archives, please request this information from them. http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/leisure/archives/visiting/HLAC1.htm

I apologise that your request will not be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.

If you have a complaint about the handling of your enquiry then please contact Freedom of Information Officer in the first instance quoting “FOI Request No. 2176” at one of the following addresses:

Not only late but late with the wrong information. Under Cllr Abelwhite, HDC is going downhill rapidly.

Applying for Freedom of Information with HDC

Secrecy still abounds at HDC. Getting information out of HDC can be quite difficult. I know I do ask for some information which is difficult for HDC to publish. HDC just loves secrecy. Below are all the FOI requests I've made to HDC with dates and how long these information requests take.

FOI Request No. 1077 22nd November 2009.
This was asking for a report to Cabinet on the Outdoor Swimming Pool.
I received a reply on 23rd November 2009 saying what they would do.

My request was refused 3rd December 2009.- This took: 8 days
I appealed this decision on 7th December 2009
I received an email setting up an internal review on 9th December 2009.
Review refused appeal on 20th January 2010 - This took: 27 days

FOI Request No. 1103 19th December 2009
This was asking about South Street Toilets
I received a reply on 21st December 2009 saying what they would do.
My request was refused on 12th January 2010 - This took: 12 days
I appealed this refusal on 12th January 2010
The appeal was rejected on 15th February 2010 - This took: 24 days

FOI Request 1157 - 3rd February 2010
This was requesting Agendas, Minutes and reports for the Car Parks Working Party
Refused 26th February 2010 - This took: 17 days
Appealed 26th February 2010
Sent another e-mail asking when this appeal was to be heard on 12th March 2010
I received a reply on 26th February 2010 stating:
We will be in contact with you again by the end of March.
Appeal Refused 6th April 2011. This took: 25 days

FOI Request No: 1304 - 7th June 2010
This was about the contradictions in the amount of money claimed to be spent electing a Mayor.
Answered: 2nd July 2010 - This took: 19 days

FOI Request No: 1305 - 7th June 2010
Request for notes on Neighbourhood Forums.
I cancelled this request on 25th June 2010 as these had been published after the request had been made.

FOI Request No: 1487 - 15th October 2010
Information on Chairman's Charities costs.
Reply received 1st November 2010 - This took: 11 days

FOI Request No: 1494 - 27th October 2010
Information of closed churchyard costs
Reply received 16th November 2010 - This took: 14 days

FOI Request No: 1592 - 16th January 2011
Requesting St Neots Town Centre Initiative minutes
Reply received 3rd February 2011 - This took: 14 days

FOI Request No: 1624 - 3rd February 2011
With new information I carried on with 1077
Reply received 3rd February 2011 setting out what they would do.
Reply 3rd March 2011 with some redacted information. - This took: 20 days
Appealed 15th March 2011

Appealed to ICO over
Review decision was refusal. Informed 28th June 2011 - This took: 71 days
Appealed to ICO - awaiting outcome.

What is strange is that HDC was able after the intervention of the ICO to hold an internal review in less than 7 days!

FOI Request No: 1917 - 18th August 2011
Information on reports to cabinet about cinema site
Reply received 18th August 2011 setting out what they would do.
Refused 19th September 2011 - This took: 20 days
Appealed on 19th September 2011
Replied setting out the appeal on 20th September 2011
I should be informed of the internal appeal by 17th October 2011.



FOI Request No: 1970 - 28th September 2011
On the cost of the Co-operative Planning Appeal award of costs.
Awaiting reply.

What does the Information Commissioner have to say on time limits. The ICO says:

Q: How quickly will I receive a response?
A: You must be informed in writing whether the public authority holds the information requested and if so, have the information communicated to you, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after they receive the request.

So how has HDC done against this 20 days time limit?

Days taken - 8, 12, 17, 19, 11, 14, 14, 20, 20

Whilst they have started taking their time all requests have been initially answered not later than 20 days. Whilst this has been on the 20 day limit on a couple of times, HDC is within the rules.

What does the ICO have to say on internal review time limits? The ICO says:

In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. There may be a small number of cases which involve exceptional circumstances where it may be reasonable to take longer. In those circumstances, the public authority should, as a matter of good practice, notify the requester and explain why more time is needed.

Days taken for internal review: 27, 24, 25, 71, - none of these times are under the 20 working days limit. At no time have I received any communication to inform me there was a delay in the review. 71 days is quite remarkable. I had to go to the ICO to get HDC to get a move on because this is where HDC can stump me. Without going through the internal appeal procedure I cannot appeal to the ICO.

When HDC is dealing with me the Internal Review can take between 24 and 71 days. When the ICO gets involved it took less than 7 days. So the answer has to be get the ICO involved if HDC takes longer than 20 days on Internal Reviews.

Note: All days calculated in the above article are working days which do not include Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. The day after the request is made is counted as day 1.

Filling the pool of despair

I have received an answer to the Freedom of Information request I put into Huntingdonshire District Council over a secret report to a meeting of Cabinet on 31st January 2008. The whole report with the redacted part can be found here.

The interesting part is this:

The terms provisionally agreed are these:

HDC forgoes taking half the proceeds. The interest from the money HDC gets is to be given back to the project the Swimming Pool Trust comes up with. All this was known in January 2008. So why couldn't the residents of St Neots be told of this back then?

Unless HDC changes its mind, the swimming pool trust will get virtually all the money one way or another. Good news for St Neots!

And that is the crux of all this. This is good news for St Neots. It is also good news for the Conservatives. So why keep all this secret?

The only answer I can think of is the District Council wanted to screw the trust for money. This seems ridiculous because all the St Neots District Councillors should be privy to this information in the secret minutes. Again, why keep all this secret?

Would it be cheaper to just give the money to charity?

In a letter to the Hunts Post Cllr Dutton, Chairman of HDC, informed us that "a large part of his role was raising money for charity". I therefore sent in a Freedom of Information request about this role and how much is raised by previous Chairmen and the cost of raising this money.

What surprised me is how little is actually raised. Over 2 years Cllr Swales £4200 or £2100 a year. In the next 2 years the Cllr Davies raised £1183 or £591.50 a year. Now the Chairman doesn't actually organise the fundraising. It is up to his "Office" or part share of a Personal Assistant who actually organises these events. This is using Council resources to raise money or Council Taxpayers money to raise money for Charity.

The total cost (Salary, Employer NI, Employer Pension, Office costs, Management costs) of the PA must be about £50,000. Even if only 5 % of the time was used to organise these charity events this would equate to £2500 a year. So it could cost £2500 a year to raise £2100 or £591.50. This is a waste of Council taxpayers money for the ego of the Chairman. I'm not trying to stop giving to charity but wouldn't it be cheaper for the Council to give £1000 a year. Even if this is illegal the Chairman receives an allowance of £7600. Why not use this. Or each Councillor gives £25 to the Chairman's Charity. Far cheaper methods raising money.

It is a pity that HDC is in the throws of making massive cuts that it doesn't know how much raising money for Charity is costing the Council Taxpayer. What services will be cut because the Chairman wants to raise money for Charity? Is this the right priority!

------------------

Reply from HDC to my FOI request:

You requested: “For each of the last 3 financial years how much has been raised for each of the designated charities in each year.

Further, I understand the Chairman's Office organises these charity events.

I therefore request, for the last financial year, the cost of organising and running of these charity events in staff and/or officer time. Also to include any other costs associated with the running of these charity events.”

You are correct in stating that, each year, the Chairman of the Council nominates one or more charities and raises funds for them as part of the civic events that are organised throughout his or her term of office.  This is not part of the Chairman’s official duties nor within the terms of reference of the chairman of the authority.  It is therefore a matter for the discretion of individual Chairmen.

The information that you have requested is not available for each financial year as the municipal year runs from May when a new Chairman is elected at the Council’s annual meeting.  Traditionally, a Chairman is re-elected for a second term of office and occupies the position therefore for 2 years. 

Councillor P Swales who was Chairman from May 2006 to May 2008 donated the proceeds of events to the following charities –

£2,000 – Mid Anglia MS Society (Huntingdon)

£500 – Salvation Army (Kings Ripton)

£1500 – Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital (London)

£200 – Huntingdon and District Sea Cadets

Councillor J W Davies who was Chairman from May 2008 to May 2010 donated the proceeds of events to the following charities –

£361 – St John Ambulance (Huntingdon)

£361 – Macmillan Cancer Support (St Neots)

£361 – Magpas (St Ives)

£100 – Army Cadet Force (St Ives)

With regard to your second question, the Chairman of the Council does not have ‘an Office’. He shares a P.A. with one of the Council’s Heads of Service and that person assists with his diary planning, attendance at civic functions, organisation of events etc. 

Turning to the last of your questions, the Chairman’s P.A. does not record her time against the various tasks that she undertakes for him.  No information is therefore available as to the cost of any staff time spent in arranging events or functions.  With regard to other costs incurred in the past municipal year, the principal fund raising event was a charity ball.  The income from ticket sales etc. was £6,056.92, the expenditure was £4,871.76 and the balance was donated to charities.

Council Hits Back at advisers claims?

The Hunts Post St Neots - 13/10/2010

The Taxpayers Alliance issued a report into the number of political advisers the council employs. The report says HDC employs 14 political officers.

HDC says there are none and all this was down to an ambiguous "Freedom of Information" request by the TPA. Strange that all the other Councils answered without this interpretation.

This from HDC where Freedom of Information isn't very good. I'm surprised that HDC didn't refuse the request and the TPA then had to appeal to get some information. HDC also puts many of its decision deliberations into secret working group meetings. Instead the useless Overview and Scrutiny Panels do nothing. Instead of setting up secret working groups HDC could use these groups to develop policy.

So the TPA is wrong and HDC has jumped all over this as it is the TPA's fault for asking a question that other councils got right and HDC got wrong. 

Eric Pickles says:

The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles says:

"Getting council business out in the open will revolutionise local government. Local people should be able to hold politicians and public bodies to account over how their hard earned cash is being spent and decisions made on their behalf. They can only do that effectively if they have the information they need at their fingertips."

This is a profound statement and, I believe, we should be hold not only the Communities Secretary to his new standard AND local government to this new standard. All three levels of local Government, County, District and Town must be held to this standard. At the moment they are all woefully deficient. 

County Council: I find it very hard to find information on many of the activities of this monster. Too often the information is buried. I tried to find out the budget for 2010/11 but had trouble all the way through. Also there are cuts being made. Is there a section on the website on the options? Of course not. The County Council doesn't want to know our views on the cuts.

District Council: A very secretive organisation. The Working Group or Working Party is the secretive method the Council uses to keep information out of the public domain. Information that comes before these secret groups remains secret. Not what Eric Pickles wants! Agendas/Minutes and Reports for these secret meetings aren't published.

St Neots Town Council: In theory this Council shouldn't need to do much. Accounts payable are public documents and can be published with each agenda. There is the problem. The Town Council isn't very good at publishing information, like Agendas, Minutes and associated reports. The useless Planning Committee has agenda and minutes published very quickly. The Council and other committees are either not published or very late.

All these councils like their secrecy. There is a Government culture which puts secrecy first. These are bodies to which many of us don't have a choice over. All levels of Government need to embrace openness and change from the culture of secrecy. The example of local government compliance with Freedom of Information is not a good one. Local Government has blocked and blocked information it doesn't want to be published and there is no real way of making Councils do this. I feel local government will carry on this practice for a ever and a day because Councils are there for themselves and not their residents.

Will our Councils get ahead of the game?

The Coalition has announced a bit of transparency into Local Government with any item of local government expenditure over £500 (from January 2010). I hope this will go down to Town Council level. There is no reason it shouldn't. Also contracts over £10,000 will also have to be published from September 2010. 

These are all good ideas and should be applauded. There are go ahead councils doing this already. Northamptonshire County Council is already publishing salaries and expenses of top officers. I feel we are badly served by all our councils over transparency. The bad feeling I have is local government will use every hook and interpretation of the rules to ensure transparency is stifled. 

Both HDC and SNTC are tardy over publishing minutes. What I want to know is who will be responsible for the flow of information and what will happen if the information isn't forthcoming. The trouble with Freedom of Information is Council try a stifle the information flow and there is no real comeback on the council if it does provide the information.

I feel all Councils should try and get ahead of the requirements rather than sitting back and waiting.

SNTC breaches Freedom of Information Act

I read the freedom loving Liberal Democrats of St Neots Town Council have been found wanting when it comes to Freedom of Information. The News and Crier has been pursuing a Freedom of Information request made to the Town Council about the report on the Christmas lights that fell down. The Information Commissioner has issued a report and ruled the following: 

The Town Council has the right to withhold parts of the report because there is a distinct possibility the council could end up being prosecuted.

In the handling of this request the Town Council has breached the Freedom of Information Act. The ICO found:

Question on Freedom of Information for Martin Land

I have a question for Martin Land, Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Huntingdon. The question is:

Do you believe in Freedom of Information?

If the answer is yes I have another question.

St Neots Town Council is withholding a report into the Christmas Lights accident despite Freedom of Information requests. Do you feel it is right for the Town Council to withhold this information?

St Neots Liberal Democrats v Freedom of Information

I find it very funny, in a disturbing way, that our Liberal Democrat run Town Council doesn't like Freedom of Information. Looking on Google I found the Liberal Democrats go on and on about Freedom of Information. Banners like:

There is also a section on: Strengthening Freedom of Information.

Yet at a local level the Liberal Democrats on SNTC stopping Freedom of Information by denying requests. Looking on ICO website I found an FOI request dating back to 27th March 2009.

This is about the Xmas Lights Investigation. An FOI request shouldn't take this long. So what is the Liberal Democrat SNTC doing? It seems to be the national policy is for Freedom of Information. The local policy seems to be to DENY Freedom of Information.

Having read up on the Muck and Brass blog about how Somerton Town Council resorted to solicitors to deny FOI requests I wonder if the St Neots Town Council is doing the same? Maybe this is why minutes and agendas are missing from the SNTC website!

I thought the secret SNTC was over when Julia Hayward replaced Derek Giles. Obviously I was wrong. Secrecy is the way of life at SNTC and the freedom loving Liberal Democrats are NOT doing much about it!

Freedom of Information and Hunts DC

I've made a couple of requests for Freedom of Information for specific documents which HDC deems secret. I wasn't asking for personal information nor was I asking for a mass of information. All I was asking for were documents which are secret because this Conservative run District Council believes in secrecy over commercial decisions. These deals are being done in our name and we have to pay if they go wrong.

What I wanted to know about was the decisions over Open Air Swimming Pool and South Street Toilets. So I asked for certain documents listed in the decisions but held back. In each instance I was denied the document outright. So I then appealed and suddenly I get the following redacted documents.

Options on selling South Street.
Swimming Pool Report.

What I don't understand is why I didn't get these redacted documents to start with? I feel Conservative run HDC is using Freedom of Information to deny Freedom of Information. It seems to me the policy is deny the document first rather than taking a proper decision. Then rely on the appeal to sort it out. This is wrong.

When I hear David Cameron proposing the next Conservative government will be open and transparent. When I hear George Osbourne say: “This policy will help us to cut government spending, root out waste and empower the public – and bring in a new age of transparency and accountability.” I wonder whether this has filtered down to the Conservatives at HDC.

rednek says: How can we have a new age of transparency and accountability when HDC carries on redacting documents? Secret decisions are wrong. Advice to the Council and Cabinet should always be open and not secret. Otherwise transparency and accountability are just words which this Council will try to get round.

Dipping my toe in the pool of despair!

There was a time when the whole thing would have been secret. With FOI, I was able to obtain one redacted document and the HDC also sent me another as a background document.

The reason why the District Council is involved in swimming pool is the fact there was a mess up over pool ownership back in 1974. Back then local government was being re-organised. The Urban District Councils (UDC) and the Rural District Councils (RDC) were being combined to form the new District Councils. In place of most UDCs and all RDCs Parish Councils were formed where there were none. In the case of St Neots a Parish Council was formed. Back in 1974 the pool should have become the responsibility of the Parish (now Town) Council and should have been transferred to the Parish Council. It wasn't.

In 1987 this error was found out. To correct this HDC entered in to agreement with either SNTC or SNSPT or both. There was a debt of £28,859 associated with the Trust which was dealt with by the District Council foregoing this in return unless the Town Council disposed of the site.

The terms of this agreement are redacted.

The SNSPT approached the District Council for consent to sell the land to put the proceeds for an "alternative recreation committee" as set out in the Trust Deeds.

These documents gets me a bit further down the road to what is going on with the land at the old Swimming Pool site. What I still don't understand is this: The Town Council owns the land. All the SNTC Councillors are  trustees of the St Neots Swimming Pool Trust. The District Council is the other part of this equation. Effectively, this is an agreement between two elected Council over a piece of land. There are Councillors who are on both Councils. So why is this so secret?

FOI Requests and Huntingdonshire District Council

I'm pursuing a couple of Freedom Of Information requests on a couple of restricted documents. I've never made a Freedom of Information request before and I don't see why the documents I requested are restricted. What I've requested and appealed are for another day. What is starting to annoy me is the they have told me there is an appeal but not when.

On 9th Decemeber 2009 I received this e-mail:
Dear Mr Gadenne
Re: Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations – FOI & EIR Request No 1077.
Thank you for your email dated 7 December 2009. A review meeting will be set up to consider your complaint.
Should you have any further enquiries about the progress of your complaint, please contact the Freedom of Information Officer quoting “FOI Request No. 1077” at one of the following addresses:

E-mail: FreedomOfInformation@huntsdc.gov.uk

Letter:  FOI Requests, 
Pathfinder House, 
St Mary’s Street, 
Huntingdon. 
PE29 3TN
Fax:     01480 388317
Yours sincerely
FOI Support Team
Huntingdonshire District Council

On 8th January 2010 I sent another e-mail:
FOI Request No. 1077
Hi,
On 9th December 2009 your office informed my that a review was being set up about this request. Can you please inform me of what progress is being made.

On 15th January 2010 I sent another e-mail:

FOI Request No. 1077

Hi,
On 9th December 2009 your office informed my that a review was being set up about this request. Can you please inform me of what progress is being made.

On 19th January 2010 I sent another e-mail:

FOI Request No. 1077

Hi,
On 9th December 2009 your office informed my that a review was being set up about this request. Can you please inform me of what progress is being made.

I've also got a second request in - FOI request 1103. I've asked for an appeal for one part of the of the request. Sent an e-mail on 12/01/10. Still awaiting a reply!