Dear First Minister
Strange as it seems - not all public bodies funded with public money - are covered by the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002 - commonly known as FOISA.
Some, like the company set up by Edinburgh City Council (TIE) - to manage the 'trams project' are not covered by FOISA - so you can ask them all you like about how much they're spending on paper clips - but they don't have to say.
The same is true of Glasgow 2014 Limited - whose chief executive resigned recently - and also Glasgow City Council's ALEOs - which were up until very recently paying councillors twice for doing the same job.
COSLA is another good example - probably the best example - so I have taken the issue up with Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond - and here's what I had to say.
Dear First Minister
Public Money, Openness and Transparency
Please find enclosed an exchange of correspondence with COSLA's chief executive - Rory Mair.
I understand that the Scottish government is currently reviewing FOISA and the effectiveness of Scotland's freedom of information regime.
So, in the interests of open government, I would like to propose that COSLA is added to the list of designated bodies to which FOISA applies.
Because the Convention, as you know, plays a significant role in the development of public policy in Scotland and, in my view, COSLA should operate to the same standards of openness and transparency as its key partners in local and national government.
As you will also be aware, COSLA regularly calls for a 'parity of esteem' with the Scottish Parliament and its government, but I fail to see how this stance can be taken seriously while the Convention operates to a very different standard of behaviour when it comes to freedom of information.
I will be following the Scottish government's deliberations on this issue with great interest - and hope you will find my arguments a useful contribution to the debate.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Dear Rory
Public Money, Openness and Transparency
Many thanks for your e-mail dated 8 June 2011.
Can I say, first of all, how pleased I am that you read my blog site - I know that other COSLA staff do so as well, some on a regular basis.
You asked me, in your e-mail, how COSLA can show leadership on this issue - and I am happy to answer your question directly.
To my mind, COSLA should be adopting the same standards as its 32 member councils - from whom the Convention receives almost all of its public funding via the taxpayer. Since Scotland's 32 councils all comply with the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) 2002 - I believe it makes absolute sense for COSLA to operate to the same standards as the councils it represents and deals wth on a daily basis.
In my view most council taxpayers in Scotland would support COSLA and its member councils being on a level playing field.
In addition, COSLA regularly calls for a 'parity of esteem' between local and national government - which I agree with, broadly speaking.
But the notion of a 'parity of esteem' cuts both ways, surely, and as the Scottish government is also required to observe FOISA - I think it would show leadership for COSLA to adopt the same standard of openness and transparency.
Even though COSLA is not legally obliged to observe FOISA at this point in time, which seems like an oversight to me, the Convention can clearly do so on a voluntary basis.
So in my opinion, this all boils down leadership and political will.
But what I cannot understand is your prickly and defensive attitude - because it is plainly ridiculous that the remuneration of the COSLA President and Vice Presidents should be treated like some kind of state secret - when these payments are being made from public funds.
I have to say that COSLA's attitude seems little different to the behaviour of officials in the House of Commons who tried to prevent the public from learning the truth about MPs' expenses.
I believe the Scottish taxpayer has a right to know how public money is being spent, which is the underlying principle at stake here and if there is nothing to hide, then there is clearly no need for all this secrecy.
I just find it odd that you seem to believe otherwise and that somehow COSLA should be treated differently than its key partners and stakeholders.
Kind regards
Mark
Some, like the company set up by Edinburgh City Council (TIE) - to manage the 'trams project' are not covered by FOISA - so you can ask them all you like about how much they're spending on paper clips - but they don't have to say.
The same is true of Glasgow 2014 Limited - whose chief executive resigned recently - and also Glasgow City Council's ALEOs - which were up until very recently paying councillors twice for doing the same job.
COSLA is another good example - probably the best example - so I have taken the issue up with Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond - and here's what I had to say.
Dear First Minister
Public Money, Openness and Transparency
Please find enclosed an exchange of correspondence with COSLA's chief executive - Rory Mair.
I understand that the Scottish government is currently reviewing FOISA and the effectiveness of Scotland's freedom of information regime.
So, in the interests of open government, I would like to propose that COSLA is added to the list of designated bodies to which FOISA applies.
Because the Convention, as you know, plays a significant role in the development of public policy in Scotland and, in my view, COSLA should operate to the same standards of openness and transparency as its key partners in local and national government.
As you will also be aware, COSLA regularly calls for a 'parity of esteem' with the Scottish Parliament and its government, but I fail to see how this stance can be taken seriously while the Convention operates to a very different standard of behaviour when it comes to freedom of information.
I will be following the Scottish government's deliberations on this issue with great interest - and hope you will find my arguments a useful contribution to the debate.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Dear Rory
Public Money, Openness and Transparency
Many thanks for your e-mail dated 8 June 2011.
Can I say, first of all, how pleased I am that you read my blog site - I know that other COSLA staff do so as well, some on a regular basis.
You asked me, in your e-mail, how COSLA can show leadership on this issue - and I am happy to answer your question directly.
To my mind, COSLA should be adopting the same standards as its 32 member councils - from whom the Convention receives almost all of its public funding via the taxpayer. Since Scotland's 32 councils all comply with the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) 2002 - I believe it makes absolute sense for COSLA to operate to the same standards as the councils it represents and deals wth on a daily basis.
In my view most council taxpayers in Scotland would support COSLA and its member councils being on a level playing field.
In addition, COSLA regularly calls for a 'parity of esteem' between local and national government - which I agree with, broadly speaking.
But the notion of a 'parity of esteem' cuts both ways, surely, and as the Scottish government is also required to observe FOISA - I think it would show leadership for COSLA to adopt the same standard of openness and transparency.
Even though COSLA is not legally obliged to observe FOISA at this point in time, which seems like an oversight to me, the Convention can clearly do so on a voluntary basis.
So in my opinion, this all boils down leadership and political will.
But what I cannot understand is your prickly and defensive attitude - because it is plainly ridiculous that the remuneration of the COSLA President and Vice Presidents should be treated like some kind of state secret - when these payments are being made from public funds.
I have to say that COSLA's attitude seems little different to the behaviour of officials in the House of Commons who tried to prevent the public from learning the truth about MPs' expenses.
I believe the Scottish taxpayer has a right to know how public money is being spent, which is the underlying principle at stake here and if there is nothing to hide, then there is clearly no need for all this secrecy.
I just find it odd that you seem to believe otherwise and that somehow COSLA should be treated differently than its key partners and stakeholders.
Kind regards
Mark
