SBC and WTC: FOI requests.
Posted by thewhitbyindependent on March 26, 2011
SBC and WTC seem to be very competent at not answering FOIs and declaring citizens who dare to be persistent ‘vexatious’ as a way of not releasing information.
TWI intends to look into this and put some questions to the councils – which you fund – involved. If you have any FOI requests that are overdue and have come up against municipal intransigence, please get in touch.
thewhitbyindependent -at- googlemail.com replacing the -at- with @.
This entry was posted on March 26, 2011 at 2:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized. Tagged: FOI, local authorities, SBC, WTC. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Nigel Ward said
Anticipating something of a ‘snow job’in response to the following FOIA email to:
Lousie Jackson – Data Management Officer – NYCC
Louise,
I would like to lodge a request for information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please.
My request concerns the workings of the ‘Extended Schools’ initiative brought in by the then Labour Government, I believe around 2007/8.
http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6532
My request concerns three separate categories of participant in the Extended Schools initiative, as administered by NYCC – restricted to participants in the Whitby locality. (Whitby Schools Cluster).
The three categories of participant (ie provider of extra-curricular facilities and amenties) are:
A) Private Sector (business enterprises),
B) Public Sector (Councils, etc),
C) Voluntary Sector (charities, trusts, etc).
I accept that there are issues of Data Protection and ‘commercial confidentiality’ concomitant with my request and therefore accept that some information may be subject to redaction on those grounds. I propose to obviate the need for redaction, however, on the basis that I am satisfied if individual participants (facility/amenity providers) are referred to by arbitrary numerical reference numbers in the range #001 – #100 (or more, as necessary).
The information I seek, separately for each of my categories A, B and C, is as follows:
In each of the years (or parts of a year) since the inception of the Extended School initiative in the Whitby locality,
1) How many participants have there been?
2) At what intervals of time do the participant return vouchers to NYCC?
3) Are these voucher returns preceded, accompanied or followed by ‘invoices’ pursuant to the number of vouchers?
4) Please list the amounts payable, with dates, on all such ‘invoices’ by each participant indentified by the arbitrary numerical reference number system described above.
5) Does the accounts department of NYCC harbour concerns (or has, at any time) regarding the authenticity of the vouchers returned by participants? If so, please identify, using the arbitrary numerical reference number system described above.
6) Does the accounts department of NYCC (or has, at any time) harbour concerns regarding the veracity of the amounts invoiced by participants? If so, please identify, using the arbitrary numerical reference number system described above.
7) How many vouchers were officially issued in the Whitby locality (Whitby Schools Cluster)?
8) How many vouchers have been thus far returned?
9) Have any Councty Councillors played any active role whatsoever in mediating between participants and the Council in respective of services or billing or any issue relating thereto? If so, which Councillor(s)?
10) Is the Council presently investigating any aspect of the conduct of the Extended Schools initiative in the Whitby locality.
I would be grateful if the responding officer would adhere strictly to the numerical order of my request, and observed my distinctions between the three categories of participant.
Although I have lodged this request under the FOIA, I am at pains to point out that my request is made very much in the public interest at a very sensitive time – the run-up to Local Council elections in the Borough of Scarborough and its Parishes. I would therefore regard it as a proper compliance with Mr Cameron’s (and Mr Pickles) aspiration to transparency and accountability at all levels of government if a special effort could be made to unstintingly comply with my request as quickly as possible – and certainly not later than Thursday 19th April 2011, two weeks prior to Election Day.
I also remind you that it is ‘best practice’ to retain each email of a given ‘thread’ within the body of each new e-communication, so as to give all parties a convenient ooverview of the exchange to date. Thank you.
Finally, it is my preference (as you well know) to be addressed by my given name – ‘Nigel’. Please respect that preference. Thank you.
Yours, with kind regards,
Nigel