Me, Vexatious?
Regular readers will be interested to learn that I am in the process of 'winding down' my freedom of information (FoI) activities with Glasgow City Council.
Now this is likely to come a great relief to senior council officials in who have been doing their level best for years to give as little as possible away - even though the City Council has a policy of becoming a 'world leader' for openness and transparency.
But I am pleased to report that in response to a recent FoI Review Request the Council has shifted its position in respect of a mysterious set of 'handwritten notes' regarding its 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme.
As a 'gesture of goodwill' the Council has decided to answer the points I raised despite the fact that they still regard my original FoI request as 'vexatious'.
(a) How many pages of handwritten notes are there in total?
There are two bundles of handwritten notes. Bundle 1 contains 184 pages and bundle 2 contains 179 pages. Within the handwritten notes, there are a small number of printed documents, such as meeting agendas, which have been included within these numbers.
(b) In whose name or names are these vital documents recorded?
I can confirm that this information is not held by the Council in terms of section 17(1) of the Act. By way of explanation, it is not possible to identify the author of the notes. It is unclear who wrote the notes and due to the passage of time (over 10 years), current staff members are not able to determine who the notes belonged to.
(c) Is there more than one single volume of notes and if so, how many?
As explained in response to question (a), there are two volumes of notes.
(d) Do the notes cover specific periods and if so, please confirm the dates involved”
Some of the notes are undated. The dated notes range from 2005-2007.
So who knows what will happen next because over the years my FoI requests have always been about holding Glasgow to account over the WPBR and equal pay.
(a) How many pages of handwritten notes are there in total?
There are two bundles of handwritten notes. Bundle 1 contains 184 pages and bundle 2 contains 179 pages. Within the handwritten notes, there are a small number of printed documents, such as meeting agendas, which have been included within these numbers.
(b) In whose name or names are these vital documents recorded?
I can confirm that this information is not held by the Council in terms of section 17(1) of the Act. By way of explanation, it is not possible to identify the author of the notes. It is unclear who wrote the notes and due to the passage of time (over 10 years), current staff members are not able to determine who the notes belonged to.
(c) Is there more than one single volume of notes and if so, how many?
As explained in response to question (a), there are two volumes of notes.
(d) Do the notes cover specific periods and if so, please confirm the dates involved”
Some of the notes are undated. The dated notes range from 2005-2007.
So who knows what will happen next because over the years my FoI requests have always been about holding Glasgow to account over the WPBR and equal pay.
If you ask me, this is something that ought to concern Glasgow's elected Councillors, MSPs and MPs.
Because the secrecy surrounding the WPBR is a disgrace - the scheme has proved to be a enormously costly 'white elephant' and is, arguably, one of the biggest blunders in the long history of Scottish local government.
And instead of a protracted fight to learn the truth, the history of Glasgow's WPBR ought to be freely available for everyone to see in the Council's archives - whereas the reality is that this information is secreted away in files and handwritten notes which Scotland's largest council is desperate not to share.
And instead of a protracted fight to learn the truth, the history of Glasgow's WPBR ought to be freely available for everyone to see in the Council's archives - whereas the reality is that this information is secreted away in files and handwritten notes which Scotland's largest council is desperate not to share.
Me, Vexatious? (07/01/19)
Now I think the Council is talking nonsense, but decide for yourself by reading the exchange of correspondence below.
Mark Irvine
“I would be grateful if the Council could confirm the following points in its FOI Review Response:
a) How many pages of handwritten notes are there in total?
b) In whose name or names are these vital documents recorded?
c) Is there is more than one single volume of notes and if so, how many?
d) Do the notes cover specific periods and if so, please confirm the dates involved?”
Glasgow City Council
Please be advised that your request is being refused in terms of section 14(1) of the Act on the basis that it is vexatious. In particular, the Council is of the view that your request does not have a serious purpose or value and is designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the Council.
I suspect the matter will end up being referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner because the Council is desperate to prevent the truth emerging about the role played by senior officials during the introduction of the WPBR back in 2007.
The chief executive insists that her officials acted in 'good faith' yet the Council is refusing to release crucial information about the WPBR which belongs in the public domain, if you ask me.
I am also in the process of drafting a wider 'appeal' to the Scottish Information Commissioner over the Council's refusal to release its mysterious handwritten notes.
But what a palaver, I have to say, especially as the Council regards itself as a 'world leader' in terms of openness and transparency.
And just to add a final 'Alice in Wonderland' touch to proceedings, sharp-eyed readers may notice that the Council's initial response has been sent "On behalf of Carole Forrest, Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council" - and that the FOI Review process is also conducted by 'Carole Forrest, Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council'.
07 January 2019
Carole Forrest
Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council
Glasgow City Council
By email to: FOIReviews@glasgow.gov.uk
Dear Ms Forrest
FoI Review Request
I refer to the letter below from Glasgow City Council dated 21 December 2018 (Enclosure 1) and would like to submit a formal FOI Review Request for the following reasons.
1) I completely reject the Council's assertion that my FOI Request is vexatious and that it is designed to cause annoyance or disruption, not least because your claim is not backed up with any logical arguments or supporting evidence.
2) The handwritten notes in question relate to the procurement, implementation, management and operation of the Council's controversial Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) from 2005 onwards.
3) As you know, the WPBR was later condemned as 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, in August 2017 and since that landmark judgment the Council has understandably decided to replace the WPBR with the Scottish Joint Council job evaluation (JE) scheme.
4) Looking back, the Scottish Joint Council JE scheme should have been used in the first place, i.e. in 2007, not least because the Council subsequently wasted huge sums of public money defending this 'indefensible' scheme and its discriminatory practices, while running up a giant equal pay bill which will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds to settle.
5) So, by any stretch of the imagination, this is a matter of enormous public interest and importance, from which it follows that it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask about the 'provenance' of these handwritten notes and what information they contain. Quite why the notes are 'handwritten' in the first place is a mystery, but that is a matter for another day.
6) I have to say I am surprised at the Council's reluctance to provide this information as I believe GCC has a duty to provide practical 'help and assistance' under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. In this particular case, the Council's response is deliberately obstructive and unhelpful, in my view.
7) I would also point out that the response makes a mockery of the Council's publicly stated aim of Glasgow becoming a 'world leader' for openness and transparency because important records regarding major policy decisions such as the WPBR should be freely available to the public.
8) I suspect the Council's initial response has more to do with protecting the interests of senior officials, past and present, than it has to do with the interests of good local government - and the less than judicious use of public money in Scotland's largest council.
9) I think, therefore, that it is entirely reasonable to expect the Council to answer the points I have raised instead of hiding behind a bogus claim that my request is 'vexatious'. For this reason I am sharing my FOI Review Request with the Party Group leaders and elected members of Glasgow City Council.
I look forward to your response and would be grateful if you could reply to me by email at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Enclosures x 2
1 GCC Response letter dated 21 December 2018
2 FOI Request letter from Mark Irvine to GCC dated 10 August 2018
