Accordingly, I have now appealed to the Office of the Information Commissioner and set it out in full below.
APPEAL TO THE OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Re: THE CELEBRATION STATUE - SANDWELL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Background
Mr Jim Cadman and Mr Graham Ibbeson run a private business or businesses with the intention of making profit by erecting statues of “celebrities” in various UK locations. Their standard schtick is to set up what purport to be “funds” and then to solicit donations to same - including from members of the public. Mr Cadman has refused to date to disclose any details of the alleged “funds” nor to produce accounts for the various projects.
Mr Cadman attempts to persuade local authorities to put public money into his “schemes” and in this particular instance managed to persuade gullible Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) to put £30,000 of public money into what seems to be his and Mr Ibbeson’s private business project.
You will see from the Freedom of Information documents that follow that SMBC admitted this substantial payment whilst refusing to say how the “deal” had been brokered and what the legal constitution is of the purported fund that Cadman has started to erect a grotesque statue of three footballers in West Bromwich - the so-called “Celebration Statue”. SMBC went on to say that there was no plan to put in any extra funds for this project.
In March, 2015, the SMBC budget showed a specific item for payment of a further - and massive - £160,000 for the “Celebration Statue”. I duly put in a third FoI Request dated 11th March, 2015 and I have not even received an acknowledgement let alone a substantive reply.
I wish to appeal to the Information Commissioner in respect of SMBC’s failure to reply to the Third Request and also to complain about the misleading nature of the earlier responses. It is now my firm opinion that SMBC are, at best, deliberately concealing relevant information or, at worst, deliberately attempting to deceive me and the public at large concerning this sordid affair.
Request 1 - 03/07/14
3 July 2014
Dear Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
I note that SMBC have paid AT LEAST £15,000 of taxpayers' money to
The Celebration Statue project and that Council documents purport
to show that the monies have been taken from "S106 agreements".
My understanding is that s106 agreements are by deed and
highly-specific in respect of (a) the development in respect of
which planning permission is sought and (b) detailed in respect of
the project(s) to be funded by the S 106 "gain".
Please state:
1. The total amount paid by SMBC to The Celebration Statue to date
plus confirmation of any future sums which SMBC has undertaken to
pay in respect of this project to include, if applicable, costs
involved in respect of any SMBC works at the proposed site of the
statue;
2. The date of the deed in respect of the specific s 106 agreement
which relates to The Celebration Statue and the precise wording of
the agreement (or simply supply a copy of same).Please provide the
number of the planning application, its date and the full name of
the applicant if that is not supplied in any copy document(s) you
provide.
Yours faithfully,
Julian Saunders
Reply 1 - 22/07/14
-----Original Message-----
From: [1][FOI #218833 email]
Sent: 03/07/2014 08:32:57
Subject: Freedom of Information request - The Celebration Statue
Dear Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,I note that SMBC have paid AT LEAST £15,000 of taxpayers' money to The
Celebration Statue project and that Council documents purport to show that
the monies have been taken from "S106 agreements".
My understanding is that s106 agreements are by deed and highly-specific
in respect of (a) the development in respect of which planning permission
is sought and (b) detailed in respect of the project(s) to be funded by
the S 106 "gain".
Please state:
1. The total amount paid by SMBC to The Celebration Statue to date plus
confirmation of any future sums which SMBC has undertaken to pay in
respect of this project to include, if applicable, costs involved in
respect of any SMBC works at the proposed site of the statue;
1. The total paid towards the Celebration statue from s 106 town centre
public realm sources is £30,000, made up of contributions of £15,000 in
each of financial years 2012/13 and 2013/14. S 106 funds are payments made
to the Council by developers and do not form part of mainstream Council
capital or revenue funds. It is not currently envisaged that there will be
any further financial contributions to this project from s 106, or from
other SMBC funding sources. The balance of funding for this privately
sponsored public art initiative is to be raised through private
subscription and public donations. SMBC has not been responsible for any
of the works carried out at the site of the proposed statue, nor for any
of the associated costs of such works; it is not currently envisaged that
there will be any SMBC costs relating to future works at the site of the
statue.
2. The date of the deed in respect of the specific s 106 agreement which
relates to The Celebration Statue and the precise wording of the agreement
(or simply supply a copy of same).Please provide the number of the
planning application, its date and the full name of the applicant if that
is not supplied in any copy document(s) you provide.
2. These s 106 payments are not attributable to one specific planning
application. The contributions derived from five separate development
projects in West Bromwich centre: All Saints / Providence Place (BT);
Sandwell College, Spon Lane; Lyng Health Centre, Moor Street; Tesco / New
Square; Hartwells residential redevelopment, High Street / Dartmouth
Street, which were incorporated into a town centre wide fund for planning
obligations. This was to help facilitate and finance improvements to the
public realm across the wider town centre. Parties have agreed that the
term 'public realm' in this context can include items such as traffic
management, pedestrian and cycle priority measures, additional signage,
air quality monitoring and, as in this instance, public art. Full details
of each of these applications and of the relevant S106 agreements, can be
found online through the Planning Portal.
Signed etc etc
Request 2 - 06/08/14
6 August 2014
Dear Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
Part 1
In an earlier FoI reply you confirmed that SMBC paid the private
appeal known as "The Celebration Statue" or "The Celebration Statue
1979" £30,000 of taxpayers' money ie
£15,000 in financial year 2012/2013; and
£15,000 in financial year 2013/2014.
I am assuming that these enforced taxpayer "donations" were
solicited by the appeal organisers. Please:
1. Disclose the grant application form for the "donation". If there
was a separate form for each substantial payment please disclose
each one. if the application was not made in writing please confirm
full details;
2. Please state whether there was any form of public consultation
as to whether or not these "donations" should be made - if so,
please provide details;
3. Please state which person or committee authorised this
expenditure and when, as a search of the SMBC website does not make
this apparent. Please disclose any minute or other record
confirming the decision;
4. Please state whether there was any internal SMBC report
assessing whether these "donations" were likely to constitute value
for money and whether this assessment was compared against other
funding applications before SMBC at the material time;
5. Please state whether the payments were made by cheque and, if
so, the identity of the payee. If the payment was not made by
cheque please provide full details of the method of payment;
6. Please state what enquiries SMBC made to ascertain the legal
status of the "appeal" in whatever name it used to apply for
taxpayer funding;
7. Please state the outcome of the enquiries referred to in (6)
above and the legal status of the applicants as determined by SMBC
before approval of the "donations" and/or release of the payments.
Part 2
On two recent occasions SMBC were heavily promoting the proposed
erection of "The Celebration Statue" by having dancers from Jerrel
Jackson Dance and/or Man Made Youth Co pose in central West
Bromwich as a human version of the proposed statue. Please state:
1. the amount paid by SMBC for these publicity stunts;
2. whether any contribution to the amount in (1) above was received
from any external source and, if so, please provide details of the
donor(s) and amount(s) received;
3. whether SMBC proposes to use taxpayer funds to promote the
statue in the future. If yes, please state the proposed
expenditure.
Yours faithfully,
Julian Saunders
FIRST REPLY TO REQUEST 2 - 06/08/14
This information has been marked as: IL0: UNCLASSIFIED
Request-223742
Dear Mr Saunders,
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 6th August 2014,
in which you submitted further questions relating to the proposed
Celebration statue and S106 payments.
Please find the responses to your various queries set out below, along
with the original questions to which they relate.
From: [1][FOI #223742 email]
Sent: 06/08/2014 15:22:46
To: FOI requests at Sandwell Council
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Legal Status of "The
Celebration Statue" etc
Dear Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
Part 1
In an earlier FoI reply you confirmed that SMBC paid the private appeal
known as "The Celebration Statue" or "The Celebration Statue 1979" £30,000
of taxpayers' money ie
£15,000 in financial year 2012/2013; and
£15,000 in financial year 2013/2014.
I am assuming that these enforced taxpayer "donations" were solicited by
the appeal organisers. Please:
1. Disclose the grant application form for the "donation". If there was a
separate form for each substantial payment please disclose each one. if
the application was not made in writing please confirm full details;
2. Please state whether there was any form of public consultation as to
whether or not these "donations" should be made - if so, please provide
details;
3. Please state which person or committee authorised this expenditure and
when, as a search of the SMBC website does not make this apparent. Please
disclose any minute or other record confirming the decision;
4. Please state whether there was any internal SMBC report assessing
whether these "donations" were likely to constitute value for money and
whether this assessment was compared against other funding applications
before SMBC at the material time;
5. Please state whether the payments were made by cheque and, if so, the
identity of the payee. If the payment was not made by cheque please
provide full details of the method of payment;
6. Please state what enquiries SMBC made to ascertain the legal status of
the "appeal" in whatever name it used to apply for taxpayer funding;
7. Please state the outcome of the enquiries referred to in (6) above and
the legal status of the applicants as determined by SMBC before approval
of the "donations" and/or release of the payments.
Points 1-7
My earlier FOI response to you stated quite clearly that council's two
contributions of £15,000 to The Celebration project were entirely met
through section 106 money, from a number of contributors, serviced through
planning obligations. As such, the funding stream is therefore NOT
taxpayers money.
The local authority entered into an agreement with contributors that the s
106 money would be used specifically for the provision of public realm /
public art in West Bromwich town centre. The Council has delegated powers
to ensure this money is used in accordance with the agreement and in a way
that it considers will benefit the area(s) for which it is intended.
In the case of this agreement, money has been disbursed for the
enhancement of public realm / public art. It has therefore clearly and
demonstrably been utilised entirely in accordance with the agreement that
was entered into by all relevant participating parties.
Part 2
On two recent occasions SMBC were heavily promoting the proposed erection
of "The Celebration Statue" by having dancers from Jerrel Jackson Dance
and/or Man Made Youth Co pose in central West Bromwich as a human version
of the proposed statue. Please state:
1. the amount paid by SMBC for these publicity stunts;
1. The amount paid by SMBC to four artists for two performances is £844
2. whether any contribution to the amount in (1) above was received from
any external source and, if so, please provide details of the donor(s) and
amount(s) received;
2. The activity to which you are referring is a part of the overall
marketing package that supports the marketing of the Sandwell Arts
Festival
Sandwell Arts Festival marketing budget has been used to pay for this
promotional activity which supports the Sandwell Arts Festival
The total marketing budget for the Sandwell Arts Festival was £9,000
Arts Council England contributed £4,140 towards this budget to support
the marketing activities for the Sandwell Arts Festival.
3. whether SMBC proposes to use taxpayer funds to promote the statue in
the future. If yes, please state the proposed expenditure.
3. At present neither Sandwell Arts Service nor Sandwell MBC have any
specific plans to promote the statue in the future
Signed etc etc
REQUEST 2 - REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW - 18/09/14
16 September 2014
Dear Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sandwell Metropolitan
Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Legal Status of "The
Celebration Statue" etc'.
Part 1 - You have totally failed to answer points 1 - 7 of my
original request. I asked how the application for funding came to
be made, how it came to be approved (and by whom), what the legal
status of the appeal is, who the cheques were made payable to etc
etc. Can you please reconsider and answer each specific question 1
to 7 individually.
Part 2 - The cost for the actors is said to be £844 but I am
guessing that they did not arrive in WBA kits and already
"golded-up". Was a professional photographer involved at all? I did
ask for the total costs. Please confirm what these actually were
over the two days.
Yours faithfully,
Julian Saunders
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
Yours faithfully,
Julian Saunders
REQUEST 2 - REPLY TO REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW - 31/10/14
This information has been marked as: IL2: PROTECT
Dear Mr Saunders,
Following your request for a review on your FoI entitled ""Legal Status of
the Celebration Statue etc", please find the Council's response below.
Can I also apologise for the delay in getting this out to you, but as I
previously explained I needed to understand the role of S106 monies in
greater detail to ensure that I was answering correctly. I have also
attached a further document in regard to S106 monies and how they can be
utilised by the Council.
1. Disclose the grant application form for the "donation". If there was a
separate form for each substantial payment please disclose each one. if
the application was not made in writing please confirm full details;
As previously informed there are no grant application forms for the
“donation”. The monies referred to came from Section 106 (Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)) contributions as part of the
planning requirements. I have attached a separate document outlining
S106. The Council cannot disclose information when there is no
information to disclose.
2. Please state whether there was any form of public consultation as to
whether or not these "donations" should be made - if so, please provide
details;
Consultation took place on the policy and strategy that sought to deliver
the regeneration of the town centre, including public realm improvements
(a component of which is public art); in addition, statutory consultation
took place in association with the submission of the planning application
for the Celebration statue.
3. Please state which person or committee authorised this expenditure and
when, as a search of the SMBC website does not make this apparent. Please
disclose any minute or other record confirming the decision;
The disbursement of s 106 funds falls within the remit of the Director of
Regeneration and Economy as delegated to that role through the Council’s
scheme of delegations contained within the Council’s constitution.
4. Please state whether there was any internal SMBC report assessing
whether these "donations" were likely to constitute value for money and
whether this assessment was compared against other funding applications
before SMBC at the material time;
S106 contributions are monies in addition to the Council’s base budget.
Therefore any monies within the S106 scheme are considered to be above and
beyond what the Council can expect to be able to call upon. Therefore any
use of S106 contributions for the public can be considered to be value for
money as none of it is within the public purse.
5. Please state whether the payments were made by cheque and, if so, the
identity of the payee. If the payment was not made by cheque please
provide full details of the method of payment;
Both payments were made by BACS.
6. Please state what enquiries SMBC made to ascertain the legal status of
the "appeal" in whatever name it used to apply for taxpayer funding;
As previously mentioned no taxpayer funding was used.
7. Please state the outcome of the enquiries referred to in (6) above and
the legal status of the applicants as determined by SMBC before approval
of the "donations" and/or release of the payments.
Please see the answer to Q6.
Part 2
The cost for the actors is said to be £844 but I am guessing that they did
not arrive in WBA kits and already "golded-up". Was a professional
photographer involved at all? I did ask for the total costs. Please
confirm what these actually were over the two days.
1.Painting Cost £380
2.Shirts 124.95
3.Kit (sock, shoes, shorts )£ 80.95
4. No professional photographer was involved.
5.All costs relate to two days.
Signed etc etc….
REQUEST 3 - 11/03/15
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST - NEW SMBC FUNDING OF STATUE
I refer to my earlier Freedom of Information Requests dated 3rd July,2014 and 6th August, 2014 which you only partially answered.
Bearing in mind that your reply was in the current financial year and that SMBC have now budgeted a further £160,000 for this grotesque effort it is now essential to re-visit this subject. I have also made a separate complaint about your grossly misleading responses to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
You have said that the initial two payments totalling £30,000 were made out of s.106 monies which SMBC looted from 5 major projects and that the ultimate decision to pay this money was made by your Mr Nick Bubalo but you refused to give the background to this affair.
Now the the SMBC apparently seem determined to effectively fund the lion’s share for what was supposed to be a private project by a businessman and despite your previous Reply by Mr Alan Reynolds of 31st July,2014:
“It is not currently envisaged that there will be
any further financial contributions to this project from s 106, or from
other SMBC funding sources. The balance of funding for this privately
sponsored public art initiative is to be raised through private
subscription and public donations.”
Please state:
1. Who initiated this whole process? For the avoidance of doubt, what I am asking is did either an officer or an elected member of SMBC contact Jim Cadman/Graham Ibbeson/one of their associated companies and, of so, when? Was the process initiated verbally or in writing? If the latter please supply copies of the original document together with any reply. Who, precisely, was contacted? If Jim Cadman/Graham Ibbeson/one of their associated companies made the initial approach to SMBC please confirm what the status of the initiator was ie private businessman, legal partnership, limited company, other when the approach was made and whether it was verbal or in writing? If the latter please disclose the initiating document and any reply.
2. What steps did Mr Nick Bubalo take to decide the viability of this (failed) project and the legal status of the “Celebration Statue Fund” to whom the sum of £30,000 was apparently paid. What precisely IS the legal status of the “Celebration Statue Fund”. We know it does not have charitable status and so was it in purely private account operated by Jim Cadman and/or Graham Ibbeson and/or one of their associated companies or does it have some other legal status?
3. Which bank branch was the £30,000 paid to?
4. Was Mr Bubalo given a total appeal fund total of £220,000 or some other figure? Did Mr Bubalo establish how this figure was arrived at? Did he establish the actual costs to be received by Mr Ibbeson and how much was to be paid to Jim Cadman and/or his associated companies?
5. What steps did Mr Bubalo take to assess the financial track record of Jim Cadman/Graham Ibbeson and or their associated companies? What was the information he obtained?
6. Does SMBC know what happened to the £30,000 already paid over?
7. Mr Jim Cadman has stated to the media that he already has cash and pledges of £155,000 and so why have SMBC budgeted a further £160,000 towards this project (after lying that no further payments would be made). How has this figure been arrived at and by whom?
8. Has Jim Cadman and/or Graham Ibbeson and or any company associated with them ever produced any statement of accounts to SMBC as to the income and expenditure to date? If not, why has this not been requested? If yes, what steps have SMBC taken to establish the veracity of the figures? Please supply a copy of the statement of the account.
9. I am unable to find any mention of this huge further sum being agreed by elected members of SMBC. Is this correct?
10. If the decision has been made by an officer of the Council using delegated powers please state:
a) the identity of the officer;
b) who initiated the request for further funds, how and when?
c) what factors the officer considered before approving the additional funding.
11. Is the £160,000 to be paid using s.106 monies from the sources already identified? If so, how did the officer decide to favour this project ahead of other competing items? If not, where is the money coming from?
12. What is the legal status of the Celebration Statue Fund NOW ie not historically but at the date of this request?
13. Who will be paid the £160,000?
14. Are any SMBC officers or elected members getting free or reduced price tickets for the proposed fund-raising dinner at The Hawthorns on 25th March, 2015?
Julian Saunders - 11th March, 2015
There has been no reply whatsoever to this third request.
JULIAN SAUNDERS - 7TH JULY, 2015
thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!
e-mail thesandwellskidder@gmail.com twitter @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidential phone no: 07599 983737
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.