Mark, I specifically asked about posts being cut - whether people were subject to 'compulsory redundancy' or just not replaced or posts 'not filled' , etc is irrelevant.
If you want to continue on the content of this request I suggest you move it to email - or you could use the 'what do they know' annotation feature. Paul /)/+) On 17 March 2012 21:41, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote: > 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<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 > developers-public@lists.**mysociety.org<[email protected]> > https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/** > developers-public<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public> > > Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/**admin/lists/mailman/options/** > developers-public/paul%**40idltd.com<https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/paul%40idltd.com> >
_______________________________________________ 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
