Glasgow's Councillors MSPs and MPs
I sent my recent post on Openness and Transparency to all 85 Glasgow councillors and to the city's constituency MSPs and MPs - along with the following message:
"When will Glasgow's elected Councillors, MSPs and MSPs find their voice and hold the people responsible for Glasgow's equal pay scandal to account?"
As regular readers know Glasgow's politicians all swear they are big supporters of equal pay and the City Council says its aspiration is to become a 'world leader' for openness and transparency.
But they certainly kept their heads down during the long fight with senior officials over issues such as the cockamamy 37-hour rule and the Council's refusal to answer freedom of information (FoI) requests about the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR.
So let's see what the politicians have to say during the next phase of the equal pay campaign because they've been more like the 'Quiet Bunch' than the 'Wild Bunch' up till now.
I felt the need to respond to this tweet from the Deputy Leader of Glasgow City Council, Cllr David McDonald in which he sings the praises of the the council's archives.
But I'd be even more impressed if Scotland's largest council explained the background to its 2007 WPBR pay scheme which has cost Glasgow taxpayers upwards of £500 million after being declared 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session in 2017.
Because at the moment senior officials say that the council's official WPBR records are in such a terrible mess that no one knows what is actually in the archive.
For example, they can't say whether the WPBR was put out to tender, who agreed its terms of reference and who agreed to its cockamamy, discriminatory 37-hour rule - which sounds completely barking mad.
Although to be strictly accurate, senior officials say they could provide this information, but that as it would cost the more than £600 they are unwilling to spend such a large sum of public money which is a 'defence' under Scotland's FOI regime.
Ironically, these are the very same senior officials who defended the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR in the courts for years - all the way to the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.
So the obvious question to ask is: "When will Glasgow's elected Councillors, MSPs and MSPs find their voice and hold the people responsible for this national scandal to account?"
A variety of posts below from my own blog site archive explain the background.
Here's a letter I sent to Susan Aitken recently regarding the role played by senior council officials when Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme was introduced back in 2006/07.
The council's chief executive, Annemarie O'Donnell, has claimed previously that senior officials acted in 'good faith' over the WPBR and that their aim was to eliminate gender-based pay discrimination by the introduction of this controversial pay scheme.
Now I find this hard to very believe because, as I've said on the blog site many times, a 'two-year-old' could tell you that the WPBR's 37 hour rule was designed to favour male jobs and to disadvantage Glasgow's predominantly female workforce.
For the very simple reason that the vast majority of women workers in Glasgow City Council are contracted to work less than 37 hours a week.
After a series of freedom of information (FOI) requests it turns out that the 'history' of the WPBR is contained in a set of three filing cabinets, yet senior officials refuse to release the details on the grounds that to do so would cost the Council more than £600.
If you ask me, the real reason my FOI requests are being refused is that the contents of these filing cabinet cabinets will show that senior officials betrayed the interests of the Council's lowest paid workers.
I would like an answer to a whole series of important questions including:
Glasgow - Openness and Transparency (05/09/19)
The collection of @GC_Archives are a wealth of information & these letters from a young JFK are amazing. Who knew Glasgow was the location of his political debut?!
There is also a exhibition on the sinking of the Athenia at the @riversidemuseum telling tragic and heroic stories. twitter.com/STVNews/status…
Now I'm as proud as the next man or woman that Glasgow has such brilliant records going all the way back to 1939.
But I'd be even more impressed if Scotland's largest council explained the background to its 2007 WPBR pay scheme which has cost Glasgow taxpayers upwards of £500 million after being declared 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session in 2017.
Because at the moment senior officials say that the council's official WPBR records are in such a terrible mess that no one knows what is actually in the archive.
For example, they can't say whether the WPBR was put out to tender, who agreed its terms of reference and who agreed to its cockamamy, discriminatory 37-hour rule - which sounds completely barking mad.
Although to be strictly accurate, senior officials say they could provide this information, but that as it would cost the more than £600 they are unwilling to spend such a large sum of public money which is a 'defence' under Scotland's FOI regime.
Ironically, these are the very same senior officials who defended the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR in the courts for years - all the way to the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.
So the obvious question to ask is: "When will Glasgow's elected Councillors, MSPs and MSPs find their voice and hold the people responsible for this national scandal to account?"
A variety of posts below from my own blog site archive explain the background.
Glasgow's Great Equal Pay Cover-Up (30/10/18)
Here's a letter I sent to Susan Aitken recently regarding the role played by senior council officials when Glasgow's WPBR pay scheme was introduced back in 2006/07.
The council's chief executive, Annemarie O'Donnell, has claimed previously that senior officials acted in 'good faith' over the WPBR and that their aim was to eliminate gender-based pay discrimination by the introduction of this controversial pay scheme.
Now I find this hard to very believe because, as I've said on the blog site many times, a 'two-year-old' could tell you that the WPBR's 37 hour rule was designed to favour male jobs and to disadvantage Glasgow's predominantly female workforce.
For the very simple reason that the vast majority of women workers in Glasgow City Council are contracted to work less than 37 hours a week.
After a series of freedom of information (FOI) requests it turns out that the 'history' of the WPBR is contained in a set of three filing cabinets, yet senior officials refuse to release the details on the grounds that to do so would cost the Council more than £600.
If you ask me, the real reason my FOI requests are being refused is that the contents of these filing cabinet cabinets will show that senior officials betrayed the interests of the Council's lowest paid workers.
I would like an answer to a whole series of important questions including:
- What were the Terms of Reference for the WPBR?
- How was the WPBR commissioned and was the brief put out to commercial tender?
- Why did the Council not use the Scottish Joint Council scheme recommended by COSLA and the Trade Unions?
- What was the total cost of the WPBR?
- Who 'signed off' on the key provisions of the WPBR?
My FOI battle with the City Council is still taking place behind the scenes and I have already raised some of these issues with the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
But I think the time has come to involve a wider audience in this fight - the Claimants, Glasgow City Councillors, Glasgow MSPs, Glasgow MPs, Press and Media and the wider public.
Because the way in which Scotland's largest council has dealt with Equal Pay is a huge public scandal which is going to cost Glasgow hundreds of millions of pounds.
Because the way in which Scotland's largest council has dealt with Equal Pay is a huge public scandal which is going to cost Glasgow hundreds of millions of pounds.
So there is no way that the people directly responsible should be allowed to brush this terrible mess under the carpet.
Dear Councillor Aitken
Dear Councillor Aitken
Glasgow's WPBR and the role of senior council officials
I refer to my letter dated 11 July 2018.
I have not had any response to my letter, from yourself or someone from your office, which is disappointing, I have to say.
The important issue at stake is whether senior council officials acted in 'good faith' over the WPBR which, as you know, was introduced in 2007 but subsequently judged by the Court of Session to be 'unfit for purpose' in August 2017, after a lengthy legal battle.
In turn, the role played by senior officials has implications for the settlement discussions with the Council which have not resulted in serious negotiations to end this long-running dispute, despite 9 months of talks and 21 separate meetings with the claimants' representatives (A4ES, GMB and Unison).
In the circumstances, I plan to share this letter on my blog site along with an explanation of why professional oversight (or lack of it) of the WPBR is such an important issue for Glasgow's equal pay claimants.
While responsibility for the WPBR rests ultimately with the Council's elected politicians, and with previous Council administrations, I think it is entirely fair to question why such a blatantly discriminatory provision as the 37 hour 'rule', for example, was not challenged by senior officials who claim that their sole aim in introducing the WPBR was to eliminate gender based pay discrimination.
To my mind, the only way to resolve this question is by reviewing the WPBR advice given by senior officials at the time and how this advice was presented to the political leadership of the Council back in 2006/07.
I am happy to delay any public comment for another week in case you would like to discuss the situation and, unless otherwise agreed, I would regard such a discussion as 'private and confidential'.
Kind regards
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
To: susan.aitken <susan.aitken@glasgow.gov.uk>
Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 11:39 am
Subject: Glasgow's WPBR and the role of senior council officials
Dear Councillor Aitken
The connection between Glasgow City Council and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' comes down to the contents of three mysterious filing cabinets located somewhere in or around Glasgow City Chambers.
The important thing is that these three filing cabinets contain all of the archived information about the Council's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme which was introduced back in 2006/07.
I've been asking the Council for months (via a number of FOI Requests) to explain what is actually in the filing cabinets and to share information which I believe should be in the public domain such as:
Or whether they went along with the blatantly discriminatory provisions of the WPBR including its notorious 37 hour rule which, I say, was designed to disadvantage the Council's female dominated jobs.
Tune in again tomorrow for more startling revelations.
Glasgow and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' (25/10/18)
Everyone knows that the filmmakers of the 'Fast and Furious' franchise are in town, but who can guess the connection between Glasgow City Council and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' - a sometimes harrowing and hard to watch, but otherwise excellent, movie starring Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell?
From: Mark Irvine <markirvine@compuserve.com>
To: susan.aitken <susan.aitken@glasgow.gov.uk>
Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 11:39 am
Subject: Glasgow's WPBR and the role of senior council officials
11 July 2018
Glasgow's WPBR and the role of senior council officials
I have been trying for several months, via a series of FOI requests, to understand the role played by senior officials during the introduction of the Glasgow City Council's WPBR pay scheme.
While much of the work was undertaken by an external consultant, crucial aspects of the WPBR, for example the introduction of the scheme's controversial 37 hour 'rule', still had to be approved by the City Council on the advice of its senior officials.
The Council's chief executive has stated publicly that senior officials acted in 'good faith' at the time which I find had to accept because the 37 hour 'rule' was clearly designed to disadvantage the Council's largely female workforce.
Instead of responding helpfully to my FOI requests the process in Glasgow has become something of a pantomime with senior officials arguing that the time and cost of providing me with this information falls foul of section 12 (1) of FOISA.
I enclose the latest response from the chief executive's department which claims that to index the contents of three filing cabinets (which contain the relevant WPBR data) would take 83 hours to complete - or 1.3 working days for each of the 9 filing cabinet drawers.
I have to say I find this kind if behaviour to be completely at odds with the City Council's official policy of becoming a world leader in respect of the openness and transparency of its decision-making.
I did not ask the Council to conduct a full-scale, archivist-led indexing exercise which ought to have been completed years ago, of course. Instead I asked the Council to describe the contents of the three filing cabinets for the purposes of responding to a perfectly simple FOI Request/Review Request.
So I have a proposal to make which is that as Council Leader you authorise me to have access to the 3 filing cabinets for the period of 1 (one) working day which would allow me sufficient time to assess the information held by the Council.
If I believe there is important WPBR information that should be brought into the public domain, I would submit an FOI request in the normal way which would allow the Council to consider any privacy or other issues arising from such a request.
Not only will this save the Council from doing the job itself, it will also save the Council a great deal of time and expense by avoiding a protracted FOI battle which I am confident of winning eventually, because this is clearly the sort of information that ought to be readily available to members of the public.
No matter how long it takes - the truth will out in the end, as they say.
I would also take this opportunity to point out that while the chief executive's department has repeatedly declined to answer my WPBR FOI requests on the grounds that providing this information would cost the Council more than £600 - the chief executive herself, Annemarie O'Donnell, recently decided to 'gift' £120,079 to the Council's outgoing director of finance, Lynn Brown, so that this fellow senior official could access her local government pension early.
The generosity shown towards a former senior official stands in stark contrast to the Council's treatment of its lowest paid staff over many years which is why I believe it is right and proper to shine a light on the actions of senior officials in relation to the WPBR.
I look forward to your reply and would be grateful if you could respond to me by email at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Kind regards
Mark Irvine
Mobile - 07947 795222
Enclosure x 1 - letter from the Chief Executive's department which is undated for some reason, but was sent to me by email on 06 July 2018
Information and Data Protection Team
Chief Executive’s Department Glasgow City Council
City Chambers
George Square
City Chambers
George Square
Glasgow G2 1DU
Phone: Email :
0141 287 1055 FOI_CCT@glasgow.gov.uk
Our Ref: FOI 6661259
Mr Mark Irvine
Send by email to: markirvine@compuserve.com
Dear Mr Irvine
Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
We refer to the e-mail you sent on 5 June 2018 to Ms Carole Forrest requesting a review of FOI 6581088, in which you request at 4(a) that the following information be provided to you:
“Provide me with the details of what information is contained in the three filing cabinets – by describing the names titles of both individual and generic documents”
Glasgow City Council (“the Council”) is treating this request as a request for new information in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“the Act”).
The Council’s response is detailed below.
You have requested details of WPBR related files held by Corporate HR. These files are historic files over 10 years old and are not indexed. In order to provide the requested detail, Glasgow City Council would require to complete an indexing exercise.
In order to assist you with this request, a sample exercise has been undertaken using the criteria you have outlined (viz “the names titles of both individual and generic documents” contained within the 3 filing cabinets) to assess how long, and therefore at what expense, such an exercise would take.
The sample exercise involved extracting documents from a file, allocating an index number for future identification and retrieval, reviewing the document content to identify its subject, entering the subject details onto an index template document and refiling the individual documents.
You have requested information in respect of the implementation of WPBR. The files hold information in relation to the implementation of WPBR and other related subjects. It is not possible to identify the WPBR specific files without examination and therefore indexing of all the files.
The time and cost estimates below are based on a thirty minute sample exercise. An extrapolation of the sample time and also a visual inspection and assessment of files has been used to calculate the time and cost of the exercise.
The request covers files which are stored in approximately 3 metres of filing cabinet space. The files fully utilise this space and comprise of the following:
- Documents stored in titled pockets/wallets within suspension files
- Documents stored in untitled pockets/wallets within suspension files
- Loose documents stored within suspension files
- Documents in Lever arch files
- Documents in poly-pocketsThe varying nature of the files means that some are more straightforward to index than others. For example lever arch files appear to have a greater density of related information filed together than the individual suspension files.During the thirty minute sample exercise approximately 1 cm of documents were fully indexed.Extrapolating the sample findings calculates that indexing of 3 metres of documents would take approximately 150 hours (30 minutes x 300 centimetres= 9000 minutes = 150 hours).However, as stated above, visual assessment of the files indicates that some files will take less time to index, perhaps as little as one third of the time. We would estimate that this would apply to approximately two thirds of the files. Therefore, completion of the indexing exercise would take approximately 83 hours at a cost of £1,245.This figure has been calculated in accordance with the Fees Regulations made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act. This includes the costs which would be incurred in locating and retrieving the information, photocopying and staff time. The staff time charged reflects the true pay scale of the member(s) of staff who would be involved capped at a ceiling of £15/hour per member of staff.Based on the estimated cost of £1,245 to provide the information you have requested, compliance with your request would cost the Council more than the upper limit allowed by section 12(1) of the Act and the fees regulations made under the Act (this limit is currently £600). Accordingly we are unable to comply with your request.The Council has the option of complying with requests where the costs exceed £600. However, on this occasion we are unable to, due to the resources (both financial and human) which voluntary compliance with this request would divert away from our core business.
Yours sincerely
Information and Data Protection Team
Chief Executive’s Department
Three Filing Cabinets Outside Annemarie's Office, Glasgow (28/10/18)
The connection between Glasgow City Council and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' comes down to the contents of three mysterious filing cabinets located somewhere in or around Glasgow City Chambers.
The important thing is that these three filing cabinets contain all of the archived information about the Council's 'unfit for purpose' WPBR pay scheme which was introduced back in 2006/07.
I've been asking the Council for months (via a number of FOI Requests) to explain what is actually in the filing cabinets and to share information which I believe should be in the public domain such as:
- What were the Terms of Reference for the WPBR?
- How was the WPBR commissioned and was the brief put out to commercial tender?
- Why did the Council not use the Scottish Joint Council scheme recommended by COSLA and the Trade Unions?
- What was the total cost of the WPBR?
- Who 'signed off' on the key provisions of the WPBR?
Or whether they went along with the blatantly discriminatory provisions of the WPBR including its notorious 37 hour rule which, I say, was designed to disadvantage the Council's female dominated jobs.
Tune in again tomorrow for more startling revelations.
Glasgow and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' (25/10/18)
Everyone knows that the filmmakers of the 'Fast and Furious' franchise are in town, but who can guess the connection between Glasgow City Council and 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' - a sometimes harrowing and hard to watch, but otherwise excellent, movie starring Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell?
