Glasgow - Weasel Words, Double Standards and Equal Pay
Glasgow City Council claims to be nothing less than a 'world leader' when it comes to openness and transparency which I find laughable after the lengths the Council has gone to - to try and 'cover up' details of an outrageous 'golden goodbye' payment to a senior official in 2016/17.
Here is my latest FOI Review Request to GCC's Carole Forrest, but essentially the Council is tying itself in knots with a convoluted, manufactured and bogus argument that a £120,079 payment to its outgoing finance director, Lynn Brown, did not constitute a 'gift' and was 'routine' rather than highly irregular.
So take your time and read the appalling mis-mash of weasel-words, disinformation and deception for yourselves although here are a few pointers to help readers see the 'wood through the trees'.
- The departing finance director (Lynn Brown) had no 'entitlement' to the £120,079 boost to her already substantial pension pot.
- The departing finance director applied to leave her employment early and normal practice is that voluntary 'early retirees' receive a reduction in their pension benefits.
- The council's chief executive (Annemarie O'Donnell) approved the early retirement application, but the council says there is no record or audit trail to explain AOD's decision.
- The finance director was Annemarie O'Donnell's arguably closest rival for the Glasgow chief executive's post and was actually interviewed for the position.
- The council claims that Lynn Brown's application for early retirement was pre-aaproved by the previous council chief executive, George Black, even though George left the council's employment in December 2014.
- The council has no record of George Black's alleged pre-approval from November 2014.
- The council refuses to answer FOI requests about the role-played by senior officials during the introduction of the WPBR on the grounds that this would cost GCC more than £600 to provide this information.
- Yet GCC's top official spent £120,079 of public money on boosting the pension pot of a senior colleague and rival for the Glasgow CEO job.
06 August 2018
Carole Forrest
Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council
Glasgow City Council
By email to: FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk
Dear Ms Forrest
FOISA Review Request
I refer to the letter from Glasgow City Council dated 27 June 2018, a copy of which is attached for easy reference. I would like to submit a formal FOI Review Request over the Council's initial response for the following reasons.
1) The Council's defence of its position is completely absurd because the only person to benefit from the decision to pay £120,079 into the Strathclyde Pension Fund (SPF) was the outgoing finance director, Lynn Brown.
2) Furthermore the purpose of this payment was to prevent the finance director from having to accept a reduction in her pension benefits, as a result of retiring early so it is perfectly accurate to describe this payment as a 'gift' albeit one that was supported with public rather than private funds.
3) What the Council has refused to explain, so far at least, is what justified this extraordinarily generous treatment of one senior official by another, particularly as the chief executive's decision appears not to have been reported to and approved by a relevant council committee.
4) So I am not asking for the chief executive's opinion - instead I am asking the Council to explain the authority on which the chief executive (Annemarie O'Donnell) chose to spend £120,079 of public money on boosting a fellow senior official's pension pot, particularly as this use of funds was not reported to a council committee and appears to have been done without the knowledge and approval of the council's political leadership, at the time.
5) I have read the Council's 'Scheme of Delegation' provided in response to my original FOI Request, but I cannot see any part of that document which allows the chief executive to make such a spending decision, without political support and approval from a council committee.
6) If the Council persists in arguing that the payment of £120,079 was not effectively a parting 'gift' to the outgoing finance director, I would ask the Council to explain the before and after impact this payment had on Lynn Brown's pension benefits - always remembering that pension payments represent 'deferred salary' and, in my view, are covered by FOISA disclosure rules.
7) I also repeat my request for the Council to provide documentary evidence in support of the claim that the previous chief executive, George Black, approved Lynn Brown's early retirement application before he left office in December 2014. Not only because, in my view, he had no power to make such a decision, but also because I am sure George Black would have viewed Lynn Brown as a potential successor to himself as the Council's chief executive. In fact, I understand that Lynn Brown applied for and was interviewed for the CEO's job, in the wake of George Black's retirement from the post.
I look forward to your response and would be grateful if you could reply to me by email at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Finally, on a personal note, as a Glasgow citizen and council taxpayer, can I say how strongly I disapprove of the behaviour of senior officials who have gone out of their way to look after the interests of a colleague while being so mean-spirited towards the City's lowest paid workers in relation to equal pay and the Council's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR.
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
-----Original Message-----
From: FOI_CCT <FOI_CCT@glasgow.gov.uk>
To: markirvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 27, 2018 7:59 am
Subject: Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 No 6678690
From: FOI_CCT <FOI_CCT@glasgow.gov.uk>
To: markirvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 27, 2018 7:59 am
Subject: Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 No 6678690
Dear Mr Irvine
Thank you for your request received on 24th July 2018 requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Please find attached your response.
Yours sincerely
Information & Data Protection Team
Chief Executive’s Department
Mr Mark Irvine
By email: markirvine@compuserve.com
Dear Mr Irvine
Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
Thank you for your correspondence dated 24 July 2018 requesting that the following information be provided to you:
“1) Please explain the basis on which council's the chief executive, Annemarie O'Donnell, justified her decision to spend £120,079 of public money to boost the pension package a senior colleague, given that an employee retiring early would normally expect a reduction in their pension benefits?
2) Please provide me with the documentation detailing Lynn Brown's early retirement application in 2014 and George Black's subsequent approval of this application, along with George Black's justification for meeting the cost (£174,716.85) of allowing Ms Brown to retire early without accepting a reduction in her pension entitlement.
3) Please provide me with a copy of the Scheme of Delegation under which the chief executive, Annemarie O'Donnell approved the £120,079 boost to Lynn Brown's pension package and the subsequent payment of these monies to the Strathclyde Pension Fund (SPF).”
The Council is treating these requests as requests under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“the Act”).
We would respond to each of your questions as follows:
1) The Council does not consider this to be a valid Freedom of Information request. The Act entitles applicants to recorded information that the Council holds, subject to certain exemptions. The legislation does not entitle you to request opinions or views of the Council or its officers. As indicated in our correspondence to you of 24 July 2018, George Black, former Chief Executive authorised Mrs Brown’s retirement. As we have also advised you, the £120,079.21 represented a strain on the pension fund; it was not a “gift” to Mrs Brown. This strain cost to the pension fund was more than offset by the savings as outlined on the release application form.
2) The information contained within the documents that we hold in relation to this request was provided to you in the Council’s email of 24 July 2018. As you have already been provided with all relevant information that we hold on this matter, your request is refused as a repeat request in terms of section 14(2) of the Act.
3) The information which you have requested is, in our opinion, exempt from a request under section 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 because of the exemption contained in section 25(1) of the Act. In other words, the information you are looking for is “reasonably accessible” to you without having to make a formal section 1 request. Specifically, the Council’s current Scheme of Delegated Functions can be obtained here: http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6762.
The Scheme of Delegated Functions that was in force at the time Ms O’Donnell signed Mrs Brown’s form on 1st September 2016 was approved by the Council on 17th May 2012. Please see: http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/councillorsandcommittees/agenda.asp?meetingid=11457
There were some amendments to the Scheme approved by the Council between May 2012 and September 2016, but none of these affected the relevant delegation in this case, which you will see is Number 5 in the list of delegations to the Chief Executive.
The Council accordingly feels that it has complied in full with your request.
Right of Review
If you are dissatisfied with the way Glasgow City Council has dealt with your request you are entitled to require the Council to review its decision. Please note that for a review to take place you must:
- Lodge a written requirement for a review within 40 working days of the date of this letter
- Include a correspondence address and a description of the original request and the reason why you are dissatisfied
- Address your request to the Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council:
Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council
Glasgow City Council
City Chambers
George Square
Glasgow G2 1DU
You will receive notice of the results of the review within 20 working days of receipt of your request. The notice will state the decision reached by the reviewing officer as well as details of how to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner if you are still dissatisfied with the Council’s response. You must request an internal review by the Council before a complaint can be directed to the Scottish Information Commissioner. For your information at this stage, an appeal can be made to the Scottish Information Commissioner by contacting her office as follows if you do remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the Council’s review decision -
Address: Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, KY16 9DS.
Telephone: 01334 464610
You can also use the Scottish Information Commissioner’s online appeal service to make an application for a decision: www.itspublicknowledge.info/appeal
Please note that you cannot make an appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner until you have first requested an internal review by the Council.
If you wish to submit a complaint to the Council in relation to the manner in which it has handled your request for information then you can do by requesting that the Council review its response. Details of how to request a review are set out in the above paragraph “Right of Review”.
Yours sincerely
Information and Data Protection Team
Chief Executive’s Department
Glasgow's Golden Goodbyes (09/08/18)
I haven't heard from Sandra White during the long fight for equal pay, but according to The Herald the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin has her knickers in a real twist over a 'golden goodbye' payment to a senior health board official in Tayside.
Much closer to home Glasgow City Council made an even larger payment (£120,079) to boost the pension benefits of one of its departing senior officials - for which there was no contractual entitlement.
So far at least Glasgow's MSPs have not been raising their voices in protest at this even more cavalier use of public money though let's see what happens in the days ahead.
More on this story to follow soon - so watch this space.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16406384.msp-jenny-marra-says-90k-payment-to-former-tayside-boss-lesley-mclay-inappropriate/
MSP Jenny Marra says £90k payment to former Tayside boss Lesley McLay 'inappropriate'
Helen McArdle @HMcardleHT - The Herald
Lesley McLay
AN MSP said NHS Tayside must explain why they handed "such a huge severance payment" to disgraced former chief executive Lesley McLay, amid reports she received a package worth £90,000.
Read more: NHS Tayside reject claim disgraced boss paid £300,000 severance package
Labour MSP Jenny Marra sparked a row earlier this week when she claimed she had been told that Ms McLay was paid a "golden goodbye" worth more than £300,000 when she stepped down from the organisation on July 31.
The health board hit back, branding Ms Marra's claims "categorically untrue".
Although it did not dispute that Ms McLay had received a severance package upon her departure, NHS Tayside chiefs insisted that she had been awarded only what she was contractually entitled to and nothing more.
Now, amid fresh reports that Ms McLay walked away with £90,000, including pension contributions, Ms Marra said the sum was "inappropriate".
Read more: Former Tayside boss Lesley McLay signed off sick day after being stripped of chief executive title
NHS Tayside has declined to comment on the £90,000 claim.
Ms Marra, who chairs the Scottish Parliament's Public Audit committee, said: “I am sure most people will agree that such a huge severance payment is inappropriate in this case.
“SNP politicians should explain to their constituents why they think it is acceptable for a health board that has been chronically underfunded by their own government to reward failure."
Ms Marra's comments come after John Brown, chairman of NHS Tayside, wrote to her on Tuesday in her capacity as convener of the Public Audit committee with details of Ms McLay's pay-off.
Ms Marra added: “If NHS Tayside had been honest about the extent of this pay off in the first place, the board could have gone some way to starting to rebuild trust with patients and staff.
"Instead, it has now been forced to release this information that should have been made public in the first place.
“I look forward to seeing Audit Scotland’s opinion on this payment when they publish their latest emergency report in September on the financial mess at NHS Tayside.”
Read more: NHS Tayside axed own rules to use charity cash for general spending
Ms McLay was signed off sick in April, the day after being stripped of her chief executive title in the wake of revelations in the Herald that the health board had used £3.6 million of charity cash for routine spending.
Read more: Health Secretary Shona Robison blasts financial culture at NHS Tayside as 'in a league of its own'
Earlier, SNP MSP Sandra White demanded Ms Marra retract her “smears” against NHS Tayside in relation to the £300,000 pay-off claim.
Ms White, who sits on Holyrood’s Health committee, said: “We are used to this sort of thing from Labour, as they continually seek to mislead when it comes to the NHS in Scotland.
"But Ms Marra’s claims aren’t just wrong and misleading, they are wildly off the mark – and it appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine our health service.
"People have legal entitlements and the NHS simply cannot refuse to make those payments, but as Tayside has said throughout there has been no 'pay-off' or golden goodbye as Ms Marra claimed.
"Jenny Mara must now apologise and publicly retract her baseless claims – as well as setting out on what basis she made them."
Lesley McLay
AN MSP said NHS Tayside must explain why they handed "such a huge severance payment" to disgraced former chief executive Lesley McLay, amid reports she received a package worth £90,000.
Read more: NHS Tayside reject claim disgraced boss paid £300,000 severance package
Labour MSP Jenny Marra sparked a row earlier this week when she claimed she had been told that Ms McLay was paid a "golden goodbye" worth more than £300,000 when she stepped down from the organisation on July 31.
The health board hit back, branding Ms Marra's claims "categorically untrue".
Although it did not dispute that Ms McLay had received a severance package upon her departure, NHS Tayside chiefs insisted that she had been awarded only what she was contractually entitled to and nothing more.
Now, amid fresh reports that Ms McLay walked away with £90,000, including pension contributions, Ms Marra said the sum was "inappropriate".
Read more: Former Tayside boss Lesley McLay signed off sick day after being stripped of chief executive title
NHS Tayside has declined to comment on the £90,000 claim.
Ms Marra, who chairs the Scottish Parliament's Public Audit committee, said: “I am sure most people will agree that such a huge severance payment is inappropriate in this case.
“SNP politicians should explain to their constituents why they think it is acceptable for a health board that has been chronically underfunded by their own government to reward failure."
Ms Marra's comments come after John Brown, chairman of NHS Tayside, wrote to her on Tuesday in her capacity as convener of the Public Audit committee with details of Ms McLay's pay-off.
Ms Marra added: “If NHS Tayside had been honest about the extent of this pay off in the first place, the board could have gone some way to starting to rebuild trust with patients and staff.
"Instead, it has now been forced to release this information that should have been made public in the first place.
“I look forward to seeing Audit Scotland’s opinion on this payment when they publish their latest emergency report in September on the financial mess at NHS Tayside.”
Read more: NHS Tayside axed own rules to use charity cash for general spending
Ms McLay was signed off sick in April, the day after being stripped of her chief executive title in the wake of revelations in the Herald that the health board had used £3.6 million of charity cash for routine spending.
Read more: Health Secretary Shona Robison blasts financial culture at NHS Tayside as 'in a league of its own'
Earlier, SNP MSP Sandra White demanded Ms Marra retract her “smears” against NHS Tayside in relation to the £300,000 pay-off claim.
Ms White, who sits on Holyrood’s Health committee, said: “We are used to this sort of thing from Labour, as they continually seek to mislead when it comes to the NHS in Scotland.
"But Ms Marra’s claims aren’t just wrong and misleading, they are wildly off the mark – and it appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine our health service.
"People have legal entitlements and the NHS simply cannot refuse to make those payments, but as Tayside has said throughout there has been no 'pay-off' or golden goodbye as Ms Marra claimed.
"Jenny Mara must now apologise and publicly retract her baseless claims – as well as setting out on what basis she made them."
Glasgow's Double Standards (21/07/18)
Senior officials in Glasgow City Council claim to have acted in 'good faith' over the introduction of the WPBR and its blatantly discriminatory 37-hour rule.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary they insist their cockamamy pay scheme was a genuine effort to eliminate gender-based pay discrimination, yet at the same time they refuse to answer FOI requests which would explain how senior officials conducted themselves, i.e. what they signed up to at the time the WPBR was introduced.
The reason given for refusing my FOI requests is that this would cost the council more than £600 to provide this information - yet the council's chief executive had no qualms about authorising a £120,079 'gift' to a senior colleague so that she could access her pension early.
What does Stefan Cross QC think of this contemptible behaviour? - read on and find out.
ONE RULE FOR THEM, ANOTHER FOR US
Mark Irvine's dogged digging of this dodgy deal has exposed a number of things about GCC OFFICERS
1. These are exactly the same officers failing to properly negotiate your entitlement
2. The don’t half love secrecy
3 The dole out taxpayers cash very easily when it’s for one of their own
4 They demand external verification of any money to be paid to you but avoid any external scrutiny of payments to themselves
Hypocrisy is the word that springs to mind.
STEFAN CROSS
