Spending the Public Pound
Here's a recent FOI appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner - involving South Lanarkshire Council.
The council is reluctant to explain its reasons for offering such generous and unusual retirement terms to a former senior official - even though it seems a perfectly reasonable question for a member of the public to ask.
Particularly when equivalent retirement packages are not made available to much lower paid council workers - carers, classroom assistants and catering workers - for example.
As usual, the unions have little to say on such matters - despite their spending power and political links to many of the Labour-led councils in Scotland.
Now why would that be?
Kevin Dunion
Scottish Information Commissioner
Dear Mr Dunion
South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) – FOISA request
I enclose an exchange of correspondence with South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) regarding a FOISA enquiry which I initiated on 11 November 2010. I asked South Lanarkshire Council to review its initial decision, but I am dissatisfied with their response and would like to register the following appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
1. In August 2010 I submitted a FOISA request to South Lanarkshire Council part of which was subsequently appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
2. Having discussed the case with the SIC Investigating Officer I agreed to withdraw the appeal on the basis that the original FOISA request was unlikely to succeed, as the points in dispute were not stated in sufficiently clear or precise terms.
3. I then submitted a further and separate FOISA request on 11 November 2010 (Annex 1) and specifically asked South Lanarkshire to provide the information which would explain the Council’s decision to allow a senior official to retire early with the use of significant public funds to boost his pension benefits.
4. South Lanarkshire Council refused my initial request (Annex 2) and I asked for a review of that decision on 25 November 2010 Annex 3).
5. In their response to my review request (Annex 4) South Lanarkshire Council finally released the Executive Committee Report (Annex 5), but continued to refuse my request for the information which explains the basis of the council’s decision to grant early retirement on such generous and unusual terms.
6. South Lanarkshire’s position is that the request is a repeated request and/or that they do not actually possess the information that I have requested.
I dispute the council’s answer for two reasons:
a) South Lanarkshire Council has a fiduciary duty to act with absolute propriety in such sensitive matters and is required to keep proper written records of its decisions – not least because of the significant sums of public money involved.
b) I have been in separate correspondence with the Council’s Chief Executive, Archie Strang, on this matter (Annex 6). I enclose an exchange of e-mails with the CEO which confirms that the information requested does indeed exist – but within a general body of circulars that regulate the Local Government Pension Scheme. The problem is that South Lanarkshire Council refuses to explain which of these circulars have been used to justify such generous treatment towards one of its own senior officials.
In my view, South Lanarkshire Council must be able to explain which of these regulations influenced the decision making process and were used to determine the final outcome.
Because it looks decidedly odd to reward a senior council official with a greatly enhanced pension package simply because his fixed term contract came to an end – and then to incur the additional expense of immediately replacing such a highly paid post.
In my view, South Lanarkshire Council has no valid reason for refusing my FOISA request – hence my appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course and if you require any further details at this stage, please let me know.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
The council is reluctant to explain its reasons for offering such generous and unusual retirement terms to a former senior official - even though it seems a perfectly reasonable question for a member of the public to ask.
Particularly when equivalent retirement packages are not made available to much lower paid council workers - carers, classroom assistants and catering workers - for example.
As usual, the unions have little to say on such matters - despite their spending power and political links to many of the Labour-led councils in Scotland.
Now why would that be?
Kevin Dunion
Scottish Information Commissioner
Dear Mr Dunion
South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) – FOISA request
I enclose an exchange of correspondence with South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) regarding a FOISA enquiry which I initiated on 11 November 2010. I asked South Lanarkshire Council to review its initial decision, but I am dissatisfied with their response and would like to register the following appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
1. In August 2010 I submitted a FOISA request to South Lanarkshire Council part of which was subsequently appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
2. Having discussed the case with the SIC Investigating Officer I agreed to withdraw the appeal on the basis that the original FOISA request was unlikely to succeed, as the points in dispute were not stated in sufficiently clear or precise terms.
3. I then submitted a further and separate FOISA request on 11 November 2010 (Annex 1) and specifically asked South Lanarkshire to provide the information which would explain the Council’s decision to allow a senior official to retire early with the use of significant public funds to boost his pension benefits.
4. South Lanarkshire Council refused my initial request (Annex 2) and I asked for a review of that decision on 25 November 2010 Annex 3).
5. In their response to my review request (Annex 4) South Lanarkshire Council finally released the Executive Committee Report (Annex 5), but continued to refuse my request for the information which explains the basis of the council’s decision to grant early retirement on such generous and unusual terms.
6. South Lanarkshire’s position is that the request is a repeated request and/or that they do not actually possess the information that I have requested.
I dispute the council’s answer for two reasons:
a) South Lanarkshire Council has a fiduciary duty to act with absolute propriety in such sensitive matters and is required to keep proper written records of its decisions – not least because of the significant sums of public money involved.
b) I have been in separate correspondence with the Council’s Chief Executive, Archie Strang, on this matter (Annex 6). I enclose an exchange of e-mails with the CEO which confirms that the information requested does indeed exist – but within a general body of circulars that regulate the Local Government Pension Scheme. The problem is that South Lanarkshire Council refuses to explain which of these circulars have been used to justify such generous treatment towards one of its own senior officials.
In my view, South Lanarkshire Council must be able to explain which of these regulations influenced the decision making process and were used to determine the final outcome.
Because it looks decidedly odd to reward a senior council official with a greatly enhanced pension package simply because his fixed term contract came to an end – and then to incur the additional expense of immediately replacing such a highly paid post.
In my view, South Lanarkshire Council has no valid reason for refusing my FOISA request – hence my appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course and if you require any further details at this stage, please let me know.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
