On 17/03/2012 09:59, paul perrin wrote:
As a regular requester to brighton and hove... I can say...
The system used to work quite well - then the person responsible went on
long term sick leave and it fell apart - I understand she is now back,
and the backlog is being cleared.
However, while in the past a 'proper response' would be generated and
then passed back via the FoI bod - now it seems the council are just
sending 'conversational' style replies which are then forwarded as
responses without attributation. FoI is being treated as if its a
conversational question from a resident
That is, actually, how it's supposed to be. The FOIA doesn't formalise
any kind of FOI process, and nor does it make any distinction between a
conversational question from a resident and a request explicitly made
under the FOIA. All that the FOIA does is stipulate that if you ask for
information - irrespective of how formally or informally you ask it -
and they have the information, they can't simply say "We're not going to
tell you". They either have to tell you, or justify not telling you.
There is, therefore, no such thing as a "proper response" in law.
Provided that the information sought is supplied, it doesn't matter in
the slightest whether it's on gilt-edged letterheaded paper addressed to
"Dear FOI Requestor" and personally signed by the mayor or as part of a
conversational email response begining "Hi mate, managed to dig out the
stuff you wanted, I've bunged it in a spreadsheet for you".
- instead of part of a legally
defined obligation for openness.
It's an obligation for openness, not an obligation for process.
i.e. Around a year ago I asked about top and bottom council earners, and
got a spreadsheet from a department showing the top and bottom - great.
Recently - I asked for an updated copy and got nothing (it may have got
lost in the mess of no-one in charge and/or misdirected replies) rather
than chase/find/trace it - I formulated a new request and outlined of
why I was asking - I got a one paragraph brush off response ('we are not
aware of any compulsory redundancies among the lower paid workers') sent
via the FoI bod, but with no indication of who had drafted the
pathetic, inadequate response (which of course arrived on the very last
day allowed).
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/have_jobsposts_been_lost_as_a_re#outgoing-184068
As far as I can see, that question has been answered. You wanted to know
if any jobs had been lost as a result of the "Living wage" change; the
answer is "no". The fact that you used the phrase "posts cut" and the
responder used the phrase "compulsory redundancies" is irrelevent; in
this context they mean the same thing.
Currently going to internal review.
I recently discovered that a request I made a few years ago about
whether a process had been audited led to the council instigating an
audit the very next week - something they didn't feel the need to
mention in their response at the time...
How did you discover that?
You just can't trust 'em.
As I said before, if you treat FOI authorities as the adversary then you
will inevitably intepret any response in that light.
Mark
_______________________________________________
developers-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
Unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
