A counter-example from the Dept of Health: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/open_source_software_8#incoming-108837
(Disclosure: I consult to the DH. Not in any area relating to FoI, although I have been involved tangentially in the occasional FoI response) Peter On 19 August 2010 23:46, Francis Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > He's requested an internal review > > http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/institutional_abuse_and_eviction_41#outgoing-74746 > > And I'm sure if that doesn't work then he'll take it to the ICO... > > Francis > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:51:05PM +0000, Abdul Hai wrote: >> Has Doug made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner? >> >> I have had dealings with councils get everything in writing and don't attend >> a >> one to one meeting which involves you been misled. >> >> >> >> Support solar power in the developing world. >> http://www.everyclick.com/solaraid >> http://www.solar-aid.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Francis Irving <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thu, 19 August, 2010 16:49:00 >> Subject: [mySociety:public] Do you live in Brent and care about Freedom of >> Information? >> >> Brent Council are still refusing to respond to Freedom of Information >> requests made via WhatDoTheyKnow. They are now sending password >> protected .zip files. >> >> See below message from Doug Paulley and attachments for details. >> >> If you, or anyone you know, live in Brent, there are three things Doug >> and WhatDoTheyKnow would like your help with: >> >> a) To tell your local councillors about it, and ask them to change >> council policy (you can use http://www.writetothem.com to write) >> >> b) To contact local news media or bloggers about it. >> >> c) Doug would like somebody to attend a committee meeting in Brent on his >> behalf: >> >> "The council officer I spoke to was most helpful and is sending me the >> complaints procedure by post. She indicated that the Overview and >> Scrutiny System is being in some way overhauled (aren't all council >> procedures and structures always being overhauled, or so it seems?) >> and that they are currently considering what to discuss and at which >> committee for their meetings in October. She will put "my" issue >> forward for discussion." >> >> He doesn't live in Brent, and will have difficulty getting there. >> >> Thanks for any help - you can also contact Doug directly using his >> email below. >> >> Francis >> >> ----- Forwarded message from Doug Paulley <[email protected]> >> ----- >> >> Hello, >> >> Thank you for our conversation just now. >> >> I wonder if I could submit this situation for consideration by >> Overview and Scrutiny. There is an apparent systemic antipathy by >> Brent's information officers to comply with their obligations under >> the Freedom of Information Act, particularly to requests of >> information made via the website whatdotheyknow.com. >> >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com is a website that enables people to make >> freedom of information requests to public bodies (such as councils) >> with the minimum of trouble, and enables the body to respond easily, >> at the same time automatically publishing the request and response on >> the website for the public to see. The actual correspondence with the >> council is conducted via email; an automated process publishes email >> responses on the website and notifies the requester of its >> availability. >> >> Brent Council used to refuse to provide the information via the >> website at all; for an example, see the attached 1.pdf (from >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home_boarding_license_16) which >> includes the quote from Brent: >> >> "In order for a freedom of information request to be valid an applicant >> must provide their real name and an address for correspondence . Please >> note that we do not accept the email address provided as a valid address >> for correspondence. >> >> We are aware that sending information to this email address will >> automatically result in the information being published on the >> whatdotheyknow website. Publication of information in this way may >> constitute an unauthorised re-use (under the Re-use of Public Sector >> Information Regulations 2005) and may infringe copyright. I would >> therefore be grateful if you will provide me with an alternative >> disclosure address. This can be a postal address, fax number or an email >> address, as long as it does not result in automatic publication and >> re-use." >> >> They were the only council to refuse to respond via the >> whatdotheyknow.com email address. >> >> The House of Commons attempted to refuse to respond giving a similar >> excuse. They were eventually forced to respond, however, following a >> ruling by the Information Commissioner, which was widely reported in >> the media at the time: >> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/11/foi_commons/ >> >> I attach a copy of the ICO's decision notice, 2.pdf >> >> After that, the Council had no alternative but to respond to requests >> via the whatdotheyknow.com website, though they still attempted to >> drag their feet and avoid it. >> >> I made a freedom of information request separately to every council in >> the country, including Brent, on 25th June. See attached foi.pdf, or >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/institutional_abuse_and_eviction_41 >> , for the correspondence I had with Brent. >> >> Brent responded saying they would consider my request as a >> simultaneous request for right of reuse under the Re-Use of Public >> Sector Information Regulations 2005. They were the only council to >> respond in such a fashion. >> >> I pointed out that I was unhappy with this, saying that I did not >> request or need permission for right of reuse to receive the >> information, and indeed that the Regulations themselves state that a >> request for right of reuse is only valid where it relates to >> information that has already been supplied: (from attached >> Guide...doc) >> >> "The Regulations do not change access provisions; rather they >> provide a framework for re-use of information once access has been >> obtained. Accordingly, the Regulations do not apply unless the >> document has already been provided to an applicant, or is otherwise >> accessible by means other than by making a request for it under >> access to information legislation." >> >> When the Council remained intransigent, I raised a complaint, and >> asked for a copy of the complaints procedures. >> >> Incredibly, the council responded by dealing with my request for a >> copy of the complaints procedure as a separate Freedom of Information >> Request in and of itself. They supplied it in a password-protected >> file. They said if I wanted the password I would have to phone up for >> it. In the same email, they gave me permission for re-use of the >> complaints procedure (without me asking for such permission.) >> >> I therefore requested an internal review of the whole thing on the >> 12th July. The council has so far failed to respond, even though the >> statutory requirement is to respond within 20 working days. >> >> Separately I requested information relating to their decision to treat >> requests for information in this way, see attached 3.pdf, from >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policy_relating_to_freedom_of_in >> . They did not acknowledge or respond to this request in any way, or >> to the internal review I requested on their failure to respond to my >> request. >> >> I am not the only one to be treated in such a fashion. It would appear >> to be a systemic attempt by Brent council to actively avoid responding >> to such requests, particularly via whatdotheyknow.com, and to be as >> obstructive to such enquiries as possible. For another example, see >> the attached 4.pdf, taken from >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/new_policy_on_whatdotheyknowcom. >> >> There are many other FoI requests from other individuals treated >> similarly by Brent Council, on the website at >> http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/brent_borough_council . >> >> I must say that I find it distressing and especially disappointing >> that Council officers are expending such effort in attempting to find >> ways to avoid responding to legitimate Freedom of Information >> Requests. In the process they are apparently prepared to behave >> exceptionally childishly. This seems like an inordinate waste of >> Council time and money. >> >> It's also clearly against the intention of the lawmakers and against >> all best practise recommendations. >> >> For example, attached (svinformation...pdf) is a decision notice >> (legally binding) from the Information Tribunal on a different FoI >> request. It states: >> >> "We wish to emphasise at this point that the Freedom of Information >> Act is applicant and motive blind. A disclosure under FOIA, is a >> disclosure to the public [ie the world at large]. In dealing with a >> Freedom of Information request there is no provision for the public >> authority to look at from whom the application has come, the merits of >> the application or the purpose for which it is to be used. >> Consequently, there is no provision for the public authority to create >> conditions of use pursuant to a FOIA disclosure or to indicate that >> such disclosure should be treated in confidence. A disclosure by the >> public authority of information already known to a party may well >> prove a more useable form of information to that applicant. >> Confirmation of information through disclosure legitimises it and >> creates an “official” version of information." >> >> It is difficult to see how Brent Council's responses to Freedom of >> Information Requests are in compliance with this. >> >> Brent's behaviour appears to be intentionally obstructionary. In my >> view, it is a waste of time and money (and ingenuity!) which could be >> put to better use. It presents a danger of reputational damage to the >> Council. Perhaps most importantly it undermines the duty for >> transparency and accountability for the Council's actions. >> >> I'd be grateful if you could look at the situation. >> >> Thank you >> >> ----- End forwarded message ----- >> >> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
