Time for Councillor Daniel Thomas to apologise for crass remarks about the cost of FoI Responses

Yesterday the Barnet Eye wrote to Councillor Daniel Thomas, concerning his comments to the press regarding FoI requests. The Barnet Eye believes that Councillor Thomas has betrayed a complete lack of judgement in his comments and displayed extraordinary ignorance concerning the state of the systems involved in producing responses to requests. It is clear from the audit committee report, mentioned below, that the figures for the cost of answering FoI requests are, at best, pure guesswork.

We believe that the only option for Councillor Daniel Thomas is to issue a full apology for his ill considered comments. I can confirm that Councillor Thomas has read this, as I got a read receipt. I await his reply.

As you will see, I copied in his boss, Councillor Richard Cornelius, who I hope will explain what the honourable thing to do is
---------------------------------

 From: Roger Tichborne

To: cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk

Cc: Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative ; Palmer, Cllr Monroe Liberal Democrat ; kim.inam@nlhnews.co.uk ; jdarlington@london.newsquest.co.uk ; Derek Dishman ; vicki morris ; mrs angry ; John Dix ; Nick.Walkley@barnet.gov.uk

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 6:53 PM

Subject: FoI requests - Audit report findings

Dear Councillor Thomas,

Having read your comments to the media regarding the cost of answering FoI enquiries from members of the public to the media, it is clear to me that you are unaware of the shambolic state of the systems used by Barnet Council to provide the answers to FOI enquiries. This was highlighted on page 152-154 of the Internal Audit Progress Report dated 16th June 2011.

The recommendations on page 154 state :-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority 1 recommendations

There was one High (priority 1) recommendation made as part of this review:

(1) The S&IR Team should take steps to remind Link Officers that they must:

- comply with statutory timescales under the FOI and EIRs when responding to a request;

- record the date the request is received by the Council and not the date the request is passed to them for processing.

- when closing a request on the system, record the actual number of days taken to deal with the request (ie no. of working days from receipt to response); this will assist to monitor time scales met.

The procurement of a new FOI database should allow for more effective tracking and monitoring requests.

Management Responses  and agreed action dates

Management provided the following response:

(1) Recommendations Agreed. The S&IR Team will email Link Officers reminding them they must:

(i) comply with statutory timescales under the FOI and EIRs when responding to a request;

(ii) record the date the request is received by the Council and not the date the request is passed to them for processing;

(iii) when closing a request on the system, record the actual number of days taken to deal with the request (ie no. of working days from receipt to response); and

(iv) record acknowledgments of requests onto the FOI system

The S&IR Team will update the ‘Induction Pack’ which is sent to all new Link Officers to reflect these messages and will

also include them in an article in the next FOI/DP newsletter sent to Link Officers. To be implemented immediately.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is clear that the system is in a state of shambles, which adds considerable cost and management overhead to the process. This is borne by the taxpayer. It strikes me as extremely poor form to "blame a blogger" for the huge cost of answering simple questions, which could easily be dealt with in a cost effective manner, when it is clearly caused by ineffectual management. 

I would suggest that you immediately issue a public apology for making such a claim, when the councils own audit showed the system to be badly managed, costly and failing. It is clear that until the new system is purchased, Barnet Councillors such as yourself would be better engaged in trying to help Council officers manage the mess than blaming innocent third parties.

It is also clear that the figure quoted for processing the requests (£225) is pure guesswork, as the audit report shows that there is no accurate indication of the real costs incurred.

As such the only honourable course for you is to set the record straight immediately. As someone who writes a blog, I feel that you have besmirched my reputation and all of the other citizen journalists of Barnet, who were recently rightly praised by Eric Pickles. I've attached the audit report for your perusal.

It is clear reading the audit report that your comments in this article - http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17567 - demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of the problems detailed by Barnet Council's own audit process. I think you should pause for reflection on your comments and then do the decent thing.

Please note that this email, along with any response will be published in the Barnet Eye blog. I have circulated this to the relevant Barnet media outlets to explain why your claims are so unfair and misleading. As someone who has worked tirelessly to try and help Barnet Council reign in costs, I feel that this attempt to portray bloggers as "expensive to the taxpayer" is not only unfair but completely dishonest. I would appreciate an update as to when the new system referred to above will be implemented and when we can expect the current chaotic system to be replaced.

Regards

Roger Tichborne