Web of Deceit
Here's a previous post to the blog site from September 2010 which contains an FOI Review Request - in plain language an invitation for South Lanarkshire Council to reconsider its barmy decision to refuse my original FOI request from May 2010.
The key point to note is that the officially declared rate of pay for the Council LSO 3 jobs are the four Spinal Column Points 25, 26, 27 and 28 - which means that all 578 LSO 3 jobs should be placed on one of these four SCPs because that's where they were placed after an 'objective' Job Evaluation exercise, so South Lanarkshire says anyway.
Now as regular readers know, a bona fide Job Evaluation exercise is required to treat all jobs equally - on an even-handed basis - and one of the most important principles is that Job Evaluation evaluates the job not the person.
So, tomorrow I shall finally be able to reveal exactly how many of the 578 LSO 3 jobs in South Lanarkshire Council have been placed on Spinal Column Points 25, 26, 27 and 28 - thanks to the support of the independent Scottish Information Commissioner, the Court of Session in Scotland and the UK Supreme Court.
Be prepared for a shock - is all I can say.
South Lanarkshire Council (7 September 2010)
Here's a FOISA review request to South Lanarkshire Council.
If the council fails to give a straight answer - which they've been trying to avoid for more than a year - an appeal will follow to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
As ever, people with nothing to hide - are always prepared to act openly and transparently.
South Lanarkshire Council
FOI Review Request Team
By e-mail to – foi.reviews@southlanarkshire.gov.uk
Dear Colleague
South Lanarkshire Council – FOI Review Request – SCP 25
1 I refer to the undated letter from South Lanarkshire Council which I received by e-mail on 1 September 2010. I am asking for a review of the council’s decision on the following grounds.
Abusing the FOISA Process
2 In my view South Lanarkshire Council is deliberately abusing the freedom of information regime laid down by the Scottish Parliament.
3 I originally asked the council for pay information about these posts in May 2009. The council dragged the process out for several months and argued that agreeing to my request would breach data protection principles, but after wasting all this time the council changed its mind and suddenly claimed an exemption on the grounds of cost.
4 When I submitted my request in a different manner in May 2010 to avoid any cost issues, the council suddenly claimed that my request was vexatious – a claim that was patently untrue and designed to waste even more time. To my mind this is a deliberate tactic, a pattern of behaviour that has been repeated over time and one that flies in the face of following statement which appears on the council’s web site:
"Freedom of Information legislation is designed to ensure openness and accountability. This means that wherever possible, we will make the information you request available to you."
Privacy and Data Protection
5 The council is completely wrong to suggest that my request would amount to a breach of data protection principles. The fact is that I am not asking about the personal data of specific individuals, for example the amount of overtime that individuals work, the amount of tax a person pays or for details about any other deductions from salaries, which clearly would fall into the category of personal data.
6 I am simply asking for the numbers of LSO posts to be confirmed at the various spinal column points which were identified in my original FOI request. In my view this information cannot be construed as personal data because it does not belong to an individual employee. The data is simply the specific spinal column point onto which the job is placed on the spinal column following job evaluation.
7 South Lanarkshire Council has already released some of the information relating to my original FOI request by confirming that the total number of LSO 3 posts within the council amounts to 578 individual employees. In the case of post LSO 3 the relevant salary range (according to the council) is SCP 25 to 28, i.e. the four spinal column pay points at SCP 25, 26, 27 and 28.
Identifying Individual Employees
8 The council’s initial response claims that specific individuals could be identified by the release of this information, but conveniently fails to explain the circumstances under which this could happen. In my view the release of this information cannot identify any individual or cause detriment to any individual – by the council explaining further the distribution of these 578 LSO 3 posts.
9 For example, if all 578 jobs are placed on the scale SCP 25 to 28, let’s assume that 150 are placed at SCP 25, 150 are placed at SCP 26, 150 are placed at SCP 27 and 128 at placed are SCP 28.
10 How would agreeing to my request allow individual employees to be identified – any more than the release of the total figure of 578? Unless, of course, lots of jobs are actually placed above SCP 28 in which case there are potentially serious implications for the council, but not for individual employees.
11 Furthermore, the number of posts at each spinal column point does not provide the means to identify anyone by work location or home address, or geographical area. In my view, the council’s argument is completely bogus and is all about concealing the true picture from council employees and the wider public.
Concealment v Public Interest
12 South Lanarkshire Council has previously stated that all of LSO 3 jobs are in the salary range SCP 25 to 28, which means that these four Spinal Column Points should accommodate all 578 jobs.
13 I believe that to be untrue, as do many of council employees who live and in some cases work alongside people doing these traditional male jobs. In my view, the real reason for the refusal of my request is that the council is trying to conceal the evidence of widespread pay discrimination within the South Lanarkshire Council, which the council’s own letter alludes to at Page 3, Paragraph 4: “..a number of these (LSO 3) posts may be overpaid for the work they do..”.
14 I believe there is a clear public interest in releasing this pay information because this will demonstrate how South Lanarkshire Council has been using public funds to meet its obligations under the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement. All other councils in Scotland have already done so freely - without any fuss or bother - and without the need for a formal FOISA request.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
If the council fails to give a straight answer - which they've been trying to avoid for more than a year - an appeal will follow to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
As ever, people with nothing to hide - are always prepared to act openly and transparently.
South Lanarkshire Council
FOI Review Request Team
By e-mail to – foi.reviews@southlanarkshire.gov.uk
Dear Colleague
South Lanarkshire Council – FOI Review Request – SCP 25
1 I refer to the undated letter from South Lanarkshire Council which I received by e-mail on 1 September 2010. I am asking for a review of the council’s decision on the following grounds.
Abusing the FOISA Process
2 In my view South Lanarkshire Council is deliberately abusing the freedom of information regime laid down by the Scottish Parliament.
3 I originally asked the council for pay information about these posts in May 2009. The council dragged the process out for several months and argued that agreeing to my request would breach data protection principles, but after wasting all this time the council changed its mind and suddenly claimed an exemption on the grounds of cost.
4 When I submitted my request in a different manner in May 2010 to avoid any cost issues, the council suddenly claimed that my request was vexatious – a claim that was patently untrue and designed to waste even more time. To my mind this is a deliberate tactic, a pattern of behaviour that has been repeated over time and one that flies in the face of following statement which appears on the council’s web site:
"Freedom of Information legislation is designed to ensure openness and accountability. This means that wherever possible, we will make the information you request available to you."
Privacy and Data Protection
5 The council is completely wrong to suggest that my request would amount to a breach of data protection principles. The fact is that I am not asking about the personal data of specific individuals, for example the amount of overtime that individuals work, the amount of tax a person pays or for details about any other deductions from salaries, which clearly would fall into the category of personal data.
6 I am simply asking for the numbers of LSO posts to be confirmed at the various spinal column points which were identified in my original FOI request. In my view this information cannot be construed as personal data because it does not belong to an individual employee. The data is simply the specific spinal column point onto which the job is placed on the spinal column following job evaluation.
7 South Lanarkshire Council has already released some of the information relating to my original FOI request by confirming that the total number of LSO 3 posts within the council amounts to 578 individual employees. In the case of post LSO 3 the relevant salary range (according to the council) is SCP 25 to 28, i.e. the four spinal column pay points at SCP 25, 26, 27 and 28.
Identifying Individual Employees
8 The council’s initial response claims that specific individuals could be identified by the release of this information, but conveniently fails to explain the circumstances under which this could happen. In my view the release of this information cannot identify any individual or cause detriment to any individual – by the council explaining further the distribution of these 578 LSO 3 posts.
9 For example, if all 578 jobs are placed on the scale SCP 25 to 28, let’s assume that 150 are placed at SCP 25, 150 are placed at SCP 26, 150 are placed at SCP 27 and 128 at placed are SCP 28.
10 How would agreeing to my request allow individual employees to be identified – any more than the release of the total figure of 578? Unless, of course, lots of jobs are actually placed above SCP 28 in which case there are potentially serious implications for the council, but not for individual employees.
11 Furthermore, the number of posts at each spinal column point does not provide the means to identify anyone by work location or home address, or geographical area. In my view, the council’s argument is completely bogus and is all about concealing the true picture from council employees and the wider public.
Concealment v Public Interest
12 South Lanarkshire Council has previously stated that all of LSO 3 jobs are in the salary range SCP 25 to 28, which means that these four Spinal Column Points should accommodate all 578 jobs.
13 I believe that to be untrue, as do many of council employees who live and in some cases work alongside people doing these traditional male jobs. In my view, the real reason for the refusal of my request is that the council is trying to conceal the evidence of widespread pay discrimination within the South Lanarkshire Council, which the council’s own letter alludes to at Page 3, Paragraph 4: “..a number of these (LSO 3) posts may be overpaid for the work they do..”.
14 I believe there is a clear public interest in releasing this pay information because this will demonstrate how South Lanarkshire Council has been using public funds to meet its obligations under the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement. All other councils in Scotland have already done so freely - without any fuss or bother - and without the need for a formal FOISA request.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
